Criminal Revision No. 612 of 2014. Case: Anand Mishra and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. Patna High Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Revision No. 612 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Anand Mishra and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Raju Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates and For Respondents: Ajay Kumar, APP.|
|Judges:||Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.|
|Issue:||Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 200, 202, 203, 204, 397, 401, 401(2); Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5|
|Judgement Date:||February 08, 2017|
|Court:||Patna High Court|
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
1. I.A. No. 1646 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioners, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in preferring the present criminal revision application against the judgment and order, dated 24.09.2013, passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2012.
2. Having considered the reasons assigned in the present petition seeking condonation of delay and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient causes from preferring the revision application within time.
3. In view of the above, the delay in preferring the application is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 1646 of 2014 shall stand disposed of.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
6. This application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), has been filed for setting aside an order, dated 24.09.2013, passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2012, whereby the said revision application, filed by Opposite Party No. 2, directed against the order, dated 04.10.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biraul, at Benipur, in Misc. Case No. 74 of 2012 (C.R. No. 224 of 2012) has been allowed. By the said order, dated 04.10.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biraul, at Benipur, had dismissed the complaint petition filed against the petitioners under Section 203 of the Code.
7. The short point, which has been taken on behalf of the petitioners, is that before passing of the impugned order by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, no notice was issued to them.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the learned Court below was bound to issue notice to the petitioners, if an order dismissing complaint petition filed against the petitioners was to be assailed and allowed. He has relied on Supreme Court's decision, in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517, with special reference to paragraph Nos. 48 and 53, which read thus:
"48. In a case where the complaint has been...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL