ANIL ARORA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C.Nos. 60/10 and 6250/10 as all the petitioners are related to one offence and parties are one and the same. In Cr.Rev.No. 1036/09 the order under challenge is dated 18.2.2009 passed by IV ADJ, Mandsaur in Cr.Rev. No. 30/09 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the criminal Revision filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 30.1.2009 passed by CJM, Mandsaur in Cri.Case No. 1997/08 whereby the CJM, Mandsaur refused to summon the petitioner and two others upon the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under section 190 CrPC for the offence punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC.

(2.) In MCr.C.No. 60/2010 the petition is filed by the petitioner wherein prayer is to recall the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by this Court in MCrCNo. 2717/09 whereby the order dated 30.1.09 passed by CJM, Mandsaur whereby the case was committed to the Court of Sessions was set aside and the matter was sent back to the learned Judicial Magistrate to redecide the application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 190 CrPC. in accordance with law. IN M.Cr.C.No. 6520/10 which is also the petition filed by the petitioner, the petition is under section 482 CrPC wherein prayer is to recall the order dated 10.9.2010 passed by this Court in MCrCNo. 5266/2010 whereby upon the petition filed by the respondent No. 2, this Court directed to proceed with the case as per order dated 18.12.09 passed in MCrCNo. 2717/09.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that before the Sessions Court in Revision Petition No. 30/09 respondent No. 2 deliberately not impleaded the petitioner and other two as parties. LEARNED counsel submits that in case the revision is allowed, the order is going to effect the petitioner, therefore the petitioner was necessary party and no order could have been passed by the learned Sessions Court behind the back of the petitioner.