LALIT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein along with three other complainants namely Goverdhan Sahu, Prabhuram Sahu and Ramesh Kumar Sahu lodged an FIR against respondent No. 2 herein and three others namely Prafull Meshram, Khata Ram and Deendayal alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC which was ultimately registered against them and they were chargesheeted and they are standing trial. During the course of the trial, the three complainants other than the petitioner turned hostile and thereafter, on 25/01/2017, respondent No. 2 moved an application before under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for arraigning the present petitioner/complainant as an accused which stood rejected by learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 09/05/2017 finding no prima facie case against the petitioner herein for commission of any offence, against which respondent No. 2 preferred a revision under Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions wherein only the State of Chhattisgarh was impleaded as a party/respondent. The said revision preferred by respondent No. 2 herein was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide impugned order dated 17/07/2017 and the order dated 09/05/2017 passed by the trial Magistrate was set aside and it was directed to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Questioning the order dated 17/07/2017, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner styling and branding the said order as unsustainable and contrary to the provisions contained under Section 401 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that application filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the trial Magistrate and the revisional Court has erred in allowing the revision petition preferred by respondent No. 2 against the order dated 09/05/2017 passed by the trial Magistrate wherein the petitioner was not impleaded as a party/respondent and without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of being heard either personally or by the pleader in his own defence passed the impugned order which runs contrary to Section 399 read with Section 401 (2) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. He would also place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors.1 (2012) 10 SCC 517; Mohit alias Sonu and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.2 (2013) 7 SCC 789 ; and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna3 (2019) 10 SCC 686 .

(3.) Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would however support the impugned order and submit that petitioner was not required to be arraigned as a party/respondent in the revision petition and therefore, learned revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 09/05/2017 passed by the trial Magistrate and this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.