DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. T N MALHOTRA @ TRILOKI NATH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, has prayed for re-calling the order dated 22.3.1995 passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) and to allow the petitioner to be added as opposite party No. 2 in the said case and after hearing the matter afresh a necessary order may be passed in accordance with law.

(2.) The relevant facts concerning this petition may briefly, be stated as here under; The Inspector, R.P.F., Dhanbad, had filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, on 2.10.1991 under Sections 3/4 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act 'against the opposite party No. 1 alleging, inter alia, that in a raid conducted on 2.9.1991 in the Rolling Mill of opposite party No. 1 various railway properties were recovered which were seized by the R.P.F. staff and seizure list was prepared. On the basis of the materials in the complaint filed by the Inspector of R.P.F., the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, vide his order dated 29.10.1991 took cognizance under Section 3/4 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act against the opposite party No. 1, against which the opposite party No. 1 filed Cr. Misc. No. 364 of 1993 (R), in which the State of Bihar was made opposite party. The said Cri. Miscellaneous case was decided by a Bench of this Court presided over by Hon ble Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup vide order dated 22.3.1995. His Lordship quashed the order dated 29.10.1991 passed by the Railway Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby he took cognizance in the case.

(3.) Being aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the order dated 22.3.1995 passed by this Court, the instant application has been filed for re-calling the order mainlv on the grounds that opposite party No. 1 had obtained the order by suppressing material facts without making the Complainant/Railway Protection Force a party in Cr. Misc. No. 365 of 1993 (R) and in the absence of complainant/ RPF the opposite party No. 1 obtained the order, virtually, in ex-parte manner, although, State of Bihar was made a party but the complainant/RPF was a necessary party in the case and without making him a party in the case the opposite party No. 1 obtained the order.