P a g e | 1

Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2023

1) Loyangamba Thounaojam, aged about 43 years, S/o L.

Brajamani Meitei.

2) Thounaojam Brajamani Meetei, aged about 78 years, S/o

(L) Th. Parijat Singh.

3) Thounaojam Ongbi Ramani Leima, aged about 76 years,

W/o Th. Brajamani Meetei.

-

All are residents of Sagolband Ingudam Leirak,

P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.

… Petitioners/Appellants

in Cril.Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022

-VERSUS-

Smt. Kshetrimayum (N) Thounaojam (O) Joymati Devi,

aged about 40 years, W/o Loyangamba Thounaojam of

Sagolband Ingudam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal

West District, Manipur, at present residing at

Chingamakha Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,

Imphal West District, Manipur.

… Respondent/Respondent in

Cril.Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners

::

Mr. S. Suresh, Adv.

For the Respondent

::

None appeared

.

Date of Hearing and

Judgment & Order

::

19.10.2023

SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL

SHARMA

Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM

SUSHIL SHARMA

Date: 2023.10.30 16:31:41 +05'30'

P a g e | 2

Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2023

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(ORAL)

Heard

Mr.S.Suresh,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondent despite

service of notice and her name being published in the cause list.

The respondent, thereafter, called absent and set ex parte.

2.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 396 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to set

aside the order dated 12.4.2023 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Imphal West in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2022.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the impugned judgment and order dated 12.4.2023 passed in the

appeal is not sustainable in the eye of law, inasmuch as the same

was passed without application of judicial mind. The learned

counsel further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has

committed an error in passing the impugned judgment without

deciding first the issue raised and framed as to the sustainability of

the judgment and order dated 5.8.2019 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West. The conduct of the

respondent is highly depreciable, inasmuch as the Criminal

Complaint Case No.38 of 2014 ought to have been withdrawn by

the respondent in terms of the order dated 14.11.2016 passed in

P a g e | 3

Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2023

Mat. (Div.) Suit No.82 of 2014. Instead, the respondent pursued the

matter which led to the passing the judgment and order dated

5.8.2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

4.

The learned counsel further submitted that both the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the learned Sessions

Judge have completely erred in passing the order dated 5.8.2019

in Criminal Complaint Case No.38 of 2014 and the judgment dated

12.4.2023 passed in Cril. Appeal No.1 of 2002 by keeping the order

dated 14.11.2016 in Mat. (Div.) Suit No.82 of 2014 at naught.

5.

According to the petitioners, the act of the respondent

is nothing but abuse of the process of the order dated 5.8.2019

passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.39 of 2014. According to

the petitioners, to prevent the miscarriage of justice, interference of

this Court in the impugned order is called for. Thus, a prayer has

been made to allow the criminal revision petition and to set aside

the judgment and order dated 12.4.2023 passed in the criminal

appeal.

6.

The point that arises for consideration is whether the

learned Sessions Judge was right in dismissing the appeal

preferred against the order dated 5.8.2019 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Imphal