KUNDAN KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 in spite of repeated calls, though he has appeared through advocate, whose name appears in the cause list. Yesterday also, the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to the respondent No. 2, as no one had appeared on his behalf in spite of repeated calls.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Criminal Revision No. 271 of 2008, whereby the application filed against the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in Complaint Case No. 896 of 2008, dismissing the complaint case under Section 203 Cr.P.C., was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16/17.02.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby prime facie case was found against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and processes were ordered to be issued against the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the revisional Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not the necessary party in the revision, inasmuch, the complaint petition was dismissed without hearing the accused and as such, the petitioner was not required to be added as a party in the revision filed against the order of dismissal of the complaint. Section 398 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-