ISHWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, by means of aforementioned applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the order dated 10.03.2010 passed as against the applicants by Addl. Sessions Judge / I F.T.C., Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal revision no. 289 of 2010, Rajbir Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and further, to quash the order dated 08.04.2010, passed as against the applicants by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal complaint case no. 1063 of 2010 (old no. 2076 of 2009), Rajbeer Singh vs Gyanendra Pal Singh Tomar and others.

(2.) Respondent no. 2 filed a criminal compliant case against six accused persons, including the applicants, in the court of J.M., Roorkee. Learned trial court dismissed the criminal complaint case as against the accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 504, 406 IPC, vide order dated 12.08.2009. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal revision was preferred by respondent no. 2, which criminal revision was decided, vide order dated 10.03.2010 without hearing the accused persons. In compliance of the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, all the accused persons, including the applicants, were summoned by learned trial court to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC.

(3.) One of the grievance of the applicants is that learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, which was in violation of Section 399(2) read with Section 401(2) Cr.P.C., wherein it is stated that no order under this Section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other persons unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. This fact is under no dispute that the applicants were not made a party in the criminal revision no. 289 of 2009, and the impugned order was passed only after hearing learned A.D.G.C. (Criminal).