Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51796/2013allowed

Dilendra Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-09-11Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51796 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SAHARSA =========================================================== Dilendra Sah, S/O Kanaklal Sah, Resident of Village- Tulsiyahi, Saharsa, P.SBihra & District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Upendra Sah, S/O Boku Sah, Resident of Village- Tulsiyahi Saharsa, P.S- Bihra & District- Saharsa.

3. Bijay Sah, S/O Upendra Sah, Resident of Village- Tulsiyahi Saharsa, P.S- Bihra & District- Saharsa.

4. Ajay Sah, S/O Upendra Sah, Resident of Village- Tulsiyahi Saharsa, P.S- Bihra & District- Saharsa.

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the learned counsel for the State.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the Judgment dated 03.10.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2012, whereby the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saharsa, allowed the aforesaid criminal revision preferred against the order dated

04.02.2012 passed in Misc. Case No. 942 of 2011 filed on behalf of the first party/petitioner, whereunder the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa, dismissed the proceeding, under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

3. The sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was made party as opposite party no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2012 but the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saharsa without issuing the notice and giving opportunity to the petitioner for hearing illegally allowed the aforesaid criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order but fairly conceded that the notice was not issued to the opposite party no. 2petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2012. Moreover, the life span of order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the S.D.M., Saharsa, under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 242 of 2011 was only 60 days, which has already been expired much before and the same has no effect in respect to right title of the parties.

5. Since, the Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2012 preferred by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is allowed without giving notice for hearing to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order dated 03.10.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2012 without

giving opportunity of hearing to opposite party no. 2-petitioner, appears to be illegal and amounts to abuse of the process of the court.

6. In the result, the Judgment dated 03.10.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2012 is hereby quashed and this application is allowed.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 14.09.2017 Transmission Date 14.09.2017