Vishnu Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......cr revision application before the sessions judge, against the same impugned order of the learned s.d.m., dated 29.6.2007. it also appears that the fact that the petitioner had preferred his revision application against the same impugned order before the sessions judge, was not mentioned in the writ application. it also appears that during the pendency of the present writ application and subsequent conversion into a cr revision application, the petitioner had filed a petition on 22.11.2007, before the sessions judge in the cr revision application, registered as cr revision no. 106 of 2007, for withdrawal of the application and that application was considered and allowed on 6.12.2007. however, the intervener, who was also a party in the proceeding under section 147, cr pc, had also preferred a cr revision application before the sessions court, which was numbered as cr revision no. 120 of 2007 and which was directed against the same impugned order dated 29.6.2007 of the sub-divisional magistrate.4. the petitioner appeared in the aforesaid cr revision application as a party-respondent and had filed his rejoinder, therein. the cr revision no. 120 of 2007 was finally disposed of by.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State-respondent and also the learned Counsel for the Intervener-respondents.

2. It appears that initially the petitioner had preferred a writ application, which was numbered as WP (Cr) No. 199 of 2007. The order under challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was the order dated 29.6.2007, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr PC. By order dated 23.8.2007, this Court on considering that the impugned order was the final order under Section 147, Cr PC and being so, it was a revisable order under Section 397 of the Cr PC, this Court had directed the petitioner to convert this writ application into a Revision application. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, the original writ application was converted into a Cr Revision application and numbered as Cr Rev. No. 750 of 2007.

3. It has been now brought on record by way of filing a supplementary affidavit and also by filing an affidavit by the intervener-respondents in this case that while preferring the writ application, the same petitioner had also filed a Cr Revision application before the Sessions Judge, against the same impugned order of the learned S.D.M., dated 29.6.2007. It also appears that the fact that the petitioner had preferred his Revision application against the same impugned order before the Sessions Judge, was not mentioned in the writ application. It also appears that during the pendency of the present writ application and subsequent conversion into a Cr Revision application, the petitioner had filed a petition on 22.11.2007, before the Sessions Judge in the Cr Revision application, registered as Cr Revision No. 106 of 2007, for withdrawal of the application and that application was considered and allowed on 6.12.2007. However, the intervener, who was also a party in the proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC, had also preferred a Cr Revision application before the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Cr Revision No. 120 of 2007 and which was directed against the same impugned order dated 29.6.2007 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

4. The petitioner appeared in the aforesaid Cr Revision application as a party-respondent and had filed his rejoinder, therein. The Cr Revision No. 120 of 2007 was finally disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 6.12.2007, whereby the impugned order dated 29.6.2007 was set aside and the entire matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for fresh consideration. It thus appears that the very order, against which the present Cr Revision application is pending, does not exist any more on records. There is no further reason to continue with this Cr Revision application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.