JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Aditya Raman, the learned counsel for the opposite party-State and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 24.08.2021 passed in Cr. Revision No.186 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by which the prayer for quashing the order dated 05.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.795 of 2013 registered for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 05.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.795 of 2013 by which the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order dated 05.03.2016 has not been passed in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioners have not received any summon and in absence of execution report of the summon, the order dated 05.03.2016 has been passed, which is not in parameters of Section 82 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the revisional order dated 24.08.2021 passed in Cr. Revision No.186 of 2020 has been decided on the ground of limitation and that is why the revisional order dated 24.08.2021 is also bad in law.

4. Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioners are having full knowledge of the case. The petitioners had moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.4757 of 2013, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2014. Aggrieved with that order, the petitioner had filed S.L.P. (Cr.) No.5930 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014 and the petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court. He further submits that the petitioners are having full knowledge of the case and in spite of that the petitioners are avoiding to appear before the concerned court.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the orders have been rightly passed.

6. This Court has gone through the material on the record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners had filed A.B.A. No.4757 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No.795 of 2013, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2014. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No.5930 of 2014, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014. The process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued on 05.03.2016 and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued on 25.11.2021 against the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.795 of 2013 in Cr.M.P. No.1180 of 2016, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2020. The entire order-sheet of the trial court has been annexed with this petition. A time petition was filed on behalf of some of the accused before the trial court therein time for argument on petition was sought. The order dated 30.04.2014 is quoted herein below:

“Complainant is represented through his lawyer. Rejoinder of complainant has been filed. Copy of same served to Ld. Counsel for accused. A time petition is filed on behalf of accused, praying therein time for argument on petition dt. 19-04-2014. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly case is adjourned. Put up on 24-05-2014 for Hearing.”

7. Thus, it is crystal clear that the lawyer of some of the accused have appeared in the concerned court and has taken time for arguing the case. Thus, it was within the knowledge of the petitioners about the case. Even if the argument of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is accepted that on 30.04.2014 time was sought