IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No.634 of 2009

--------

Pradip Kumar Roy

..… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Lalita Gupta

….. Opp. Parties

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate

For the Opp. Parties :

Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate

---------

08/08.02.2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This criminal revision application is directed

against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 305 of

2008, by which learned Sessions Judge set aside the order

dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist

Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1320 of 2008, whereby the

learned Magistrate found the prima facie case to be true

under Sections 354/509 I.P.C. and not found the prima facie

case to be true under Section 376/511/452 I.P.C. The

learned Sessions Judge had made observation in the

impugned order to the effect that prima-facie case under

Section 376/511 I.P.C. is made out against the accused and

directed the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in the

light of the observations made in the impugned order.

3.

Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner

assailed the impugned order by submitting that the learned

appellate court has passed the impugned order without

hearing the petitioner herein as he was not made a party in

the criminal revision no. 305 of 2008 in which the impugned

order was passed. Learned counsel further submitted that

as per Section 401 Cr.P.C. no order shall be made to the

-2-

prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had

an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader

in his own defence. Learned counsel lastly submits that now

the parties have compromised outside the court and do not

want to proceed with the matter.

4.

Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that the

parties have come to an out of court compromise.

5.

Mr. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. supported the

impugned order by submitting that there is no error in it,

however,

he

fairly

submits

that

the

parties

have

compromised outside the court.

6.

Having regard to the facts of the case and

submission of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that

the learned appellate court has passed the impugned order

without hearing the petitioner as he was not made a party in

Criminal Revision no. 305 of 2008 in which the impugned

order was passed and since, as per Section 401 Cr.P.C. no

order can be made to the prejudice of the accused or other

person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard

either personally or by pleader in his own defence, the

interest of justice would be sufficed by setting aside the

order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2008 and

remanding the matter to the court concerned for passing a

fresh order after hearing both the parties, i.e. the petitioner

and opposite parties herein.

7.

As a result, the impugned order dated 11.02.2009

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal

Revision No. 305 of 2008 is quashed and set aside and the

matter is remanded to the court concerned for passing a

fresh order after hearing both the parties.

8.

In the result, the instant revision application is

allowed.

9.

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the

-3-

courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-

charge of concerned police station.

10.

Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

sm/