ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.213 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the order dated 24.07.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by which cognizance was taken, has been set aside without impleading this petitioner as a party in revision and the court concerned has been directed to pass a fresh order on the basis of observation made in his order.

(2.) On a complaint filed at the instance of one Gopal Prasad Sinha bearing no.683 of 2008, the court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 323/341/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code but as no prima facie case was made out under Section 307 I.P.C., no cognizance of offence was taken in the said Section. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainantGopal Prasad Sinhal preferred a revision before Sessions court without impleading the present petitioner. The revisional court without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner passed the order impugned.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned was passed behind the back and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner though a very valuable right had accrued to the petitioner. Hence, the revisional court committed illegality. Learned counsel relying upon a case Mohit alias Sonu and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2013 7 SCC 789 further submitted that by reason of the order passed by the court of learned Magistrate refuse to take cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner and when the order of the trial court was challenged before a higher court, it was incumbent upon the revisional court to give notice and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned is bad in law.