RAVI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here­inafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is di­rected against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Criminal Revision No.281 of 2005, Pradeep Paliwal and oth­ers Vs. State of Uttaranchal, whereby the revision preferred by respondent Nos.2 to 5 has been allowed and judgment and or­der dated 1.9.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar has been set aside.

(2.) HEARD Sri S.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv: assisted by Sri Tapan Singh, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No. 1, Sri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Sri Sandeep Kothari, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the entire mate­rial available on record.

(3.) SRI S.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate has solely argued that the respondents were summoned by the Judicial Magis­trate, Hardwar vide his judgment and or­der dated 1.9.2005 on the basis of pro­test petition filed by the revisionist. But in the revision filed before Sessions Judge, the revisionist/complainant-Ravi Chaudhary was not made party and even he had got no information about the fil­ing of the said revision. Hence, the order passed by Sessions Judge is against law and principles of natural justice. In sup­port of this argument, he has cited a judg­ment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mosiruddin Munshi Vs. Mohd. Siraj and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 434 and relied on para 4 which is reproduced as under :-