Jharkhand High Court
Raushan Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2367 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2367 of 2018
1. Raushan Kumar Rai
2. Bulbul Rai @ Bulbul Ray @ Abhijeet Ray
3. Kundan Manjhi ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Teju Mahra ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, Advocate
-----
07/24.01.2024 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and
Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
31.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar in
Criminal Revision No.46/2017 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.101/2015.
During the pendency of this petition, the learned Court has been pleased to
take cognizance vide order dated 05.09.2018, which was subsequently
challenged by filing I.A. No.978 of 2019 and the same was allowed vide
order dated 02.01.2024. In view of that, the order taking cognizance dated
05.09.2018, which has been passed pursuant to the learned Revisional
Court's remand order, is also under challenge in this petition.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the learned Revisional Court has passed the said
order without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
however, they were made opposite parties in the said criminal revision. He
further submits that the provisions made under Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C. clearly stipulate that after providing hearing to both the sides, the
order can be passed. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash
Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Satish Atmaram Talekar and others ,
reported in (2020) 6 SCC 625.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Venkateshwar
Gopal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are not able to dispute the
said arguments of Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners.
5. Thus, it is an admitted position that the said revisional order was
passed without providing hearing to the petitioners, although they were
made opposite parties in the said criminal revision and subsequently, the
learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners.
6. In view of the above facts, the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar in Criminal Revision
No.46/2017 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.101/2015 and the order dated
05.09.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Madhupur in connection with P.C.R. Case No.101/2015 are set aside.
7. Criminal Revision No.46/2017 is restored to its original file.
8. The matter is remitted back to the learned Revisional Court to pass a
fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The
parties are directed to appear before the learned Revisional Court on
12.02.2024 at 10:30 a.m.
9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
