MUKESH DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of Criminal complaint No. RBT1166 dated 9.11.2006 (Annexure P3) and orders dated 15.7.2011 and 26.8.2011 (Annexures P5 and P6) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 26.3.2011, petitioner was not summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the said order, complainant preferred the revision petition. The Court of revision, without issuing notice to the petitioner, set aside the order passed by the trial Court. In view of the order passed by the Court of revision, the trial Court ordered the summoning of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.8.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order passed by the Court of revision was liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Mohit alias Sonu and another vs. State of U.P. and another : 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 673 wherein it has been held as under: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel has also placed reliance on Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, : 2013 (2) PLJR (SC) 22, wherein it was held as under: -

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, the Court of revision while setting aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 26.3.2011 qua the petitioner had not issued any notice to the petitioner. Since the petitioner had not been summoned by the trial Court, a valuable right had accrued to him. Hence, at the time of setting aside of the order of the trial Court whereby petitioner was not summoned to face the trial, the Court of revision should have issued notice to the petitioner as non -issuance of notice to the petitioner by the Court of revision has caused serious prejudice to him. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P5) passed by the Court of revision is set aside. The Court of revision is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In consequence thereto, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 26.8.2011 (Annexure P6) is deemed to have been set aside.