Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Pushap Raj vs Anil Kumar on 22 November, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.346 OF
2015
Between:-
SHRI PUSHAP RAJ
S/O SH. DAYA RAM,
R/O VILLAGE TARWAI,
PO KAPAHI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. ....PETITIONER
(BY SH.ATUL JHINGAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SH. ANIL KUMAR
S/O SH. RAJU,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWAI,
PO KAPAHI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
2. SMT.MANORMA
W/O SH. RAJU,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWAI,
PO KAPAHI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
3. SMT. KALASNO
W/O SH. PREM SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWAI,
PO KAPAHI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
4. SH.LEKH RAM
S/O SH. HIRDA RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWAI,
PO KAPAHI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
5. SH. NARESH KUMAR
S/O SH.BHAGAT RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWAI,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:18:43 :::CIS
2
PO KAPAHI, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SH. G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE)
.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed against the order
05.06.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Cr.
Revision Petition No.24/2014, titled as Pushap Raj vs. Anil Kumar
& others, whereby Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner
has been dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable in
view of provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') by observing that against
order/judgment of acquittal, Revision Petition is not maintainable
but appeal shall lie.
2. Petitioner herein had filed a private complaint before
the trial Magistrate, wherein trial Magistrate after recording
preliminary evidence as provided under Section 200 of cr.P.C.
and thereafter, considering statement of the complainant and
the witnesses, had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of
Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to the respondent/accused.
3. No cognizance of the commission of offence was ever
taken by the trial Magistrate against the respondent as the
complaint was dismissed at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Whereas, commencement of the proceedings before Magistrate
against the respondent shall have to be after issuance of process
under Section 204 Cr.P.C., on taking cognizance of commission of
.
offence. As trial Magistrate, instead of taking cognizance and
issuing process against respondents, has dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., therefore, there is no
acquittal of the respondent/accused in the complaint filed by the
petitioner.
4. In view of above, learned Sessions Judge, Mandi has
committed not only material irregularity, but major illegality in
dismissing the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner
against dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
5. Accordingly, impugned order dated 05.06.2015,
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in
Cr. Revision No.24 of 2014, titled as Pushap Raj vs. Anil Kumar &
others, is set aside and case is remanded back to learned
Sessions Judge, Mandi, to decide the same afresh, by reviving
the Revision Petition, on its own merit, in accordance with law.
6. Parties are directed to appear before learned
Sessions Judge, Mandi, on 15.12.2021. It is made clear that no
fresh notice shall be issued to the parties for their appearance
before learned Sessions Judge, Mandi.
7. Copy of this order is directed to be transmitted to
learned Sessions Judge, Mandi.
8. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.
9. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this
order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said
.
authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if
required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
November 22, 2021
(Purohit)
r to
