ATMA PRASAD SINGH Vs. JHUBAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first party-petitioner in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the order, dated 25.8.1994 passed by Sri Navratna Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Nagar Utari in Misc. Case No. 857 of 1984, whereby the opposite parties No. 24 to 28 herein have been added as third party to the proceeding.

(2.) By order, dated 25.11.1994, this Court issued notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why this application be not admitted and/or, if possible, be not disposed of at the admission stage itself. On service of notice, some of the opposite parties, including opposite parties No. 24 to 28, who were added as third party to the proceeding by the impugned order, appeared, whereas the other opposite parties did not appear. Some of them were reported to be dead and steps for fresh service of notice were taken against those on whom notice could not be served. Two petitions at flags A and B have been filed for expunging the names of the deceased opposite parties No. 5, 11, 13 and 19. The parties agreed that for the purpose of this application, only opposite parties 24 to 28, who have been added as third party to the proceeding in the court below were necessary to be heard and as such, it was proper not to keep this matter pending till the service of notice validly on the other opposite parties, who were not required to be heard in the matter and, accordingly, by order, dated 21.2.1996, this case has been listed for hearing in admission matter without awaiting the service report of the notice issued on the opposite parties No. 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 17 and 20 to 23 and with consent of the parties, this application is disposed of at this stage.

(3.) A petition at flag A has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to expunge the names of the deceased opposite parties No. 11 and 19 and to put a note that they are fully represented by opposite parties 12 and 20 respectively, who are already on record. Another petitioner at flag has been filed by the petitioner to expunge the names of the deceased opposite parties Nos. 5 11 13 and 19 and to substitute Parsu Mahato, son of late Bhagwan Mahato in place of the deceased opposite party No. 5, whereas, Jalwa Devi, wife of Dukhi Bhogta, of village and P.S. Ramna, district Garhwa, being the daughter of late Masodi Bhogta has been prayed to be substituted in place of deceased opposite party No. 13, his nephew Bigan Bhogta has been requested to be substituted. The petitioner is spite of his best efforts could not trace out the heirs of late Kalicharan Kumhar, opposite party No. 19. I find that there is some discrepancy in the two petitions referred to above. In the petition at flag A, the deceased opposite parties No. 12 and 20 respectively, whereas in the petition at flag B, one Bihan Bhogta has been mentioned as an heir of the deceased opposite party No. 11 and the heirs of deceased opposite party No. 19 are said to have not been traced out. However, without going into the matter in detail, with consent of the parties herein, who have already appeared, let the names of the deceased opposite parties No. 5, 11, 13 and 19 be expunged and their respective heirs be submitted only for the purpose of this application, without any prejudice to the rights of the parties in this regard in the proceeding. No notice need be issued to the substituted heirs of the deceased opposite parties No. 5, 11 and 13 for the purpose of this application.