Allowed

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Apr 2018CRLR/1057/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision against a Sessions Judge's order due to lack of necessary parties (later appellants). Relying on Raghu Raj Singh Rousha, the Court set aside the order which was passed without hearing accused persons converted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and directed a fresh order after hearing them.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set-aside; revision allowed; revisional court directed to pass fresh order after hearing revisionist and other accused.

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1057 of 2015

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Saurabh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 56/2015 (Shamshana Vs. State of U.P.) whereby revision, against the order dated 13.11.2014 passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar was allowed.

¶7

Vide order dated 13.11.2014, learned Magistrate has treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2 Shamsana as a complaint.

¶8

Learned counsel for revisionist relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters 2009(65) ACC 629 SC contended that in revision against the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by Magistrate, revisionist Mohd. Zahid and other accused Zabbar, Nasim Ahmad and Dilshad were necessary party. They have not been made party in revision. Learned Sessions Judge has passed impugned order dated 11.03.2015 in absence of revisionist and other accused, which is not sustainable in law.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. contended that in compliance of order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the revisional court, learned Magistrate has passed order for lodging F.I.R. on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in compliance of the order of Magistrate, F.I.R. has been lodged. At this stage, legality of order dated 11.03.2015 could not be examined.

¶10

As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, persons who were made accused in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are necessary party in revision against order dated 13.11.2014 passed by Magistrate treating application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a compliant.

¶11

In Criminal Revision No. 55/2015 (Shamshana Vs. State of U.P.), revisionist and other accused Zabbar, Nasim Ahmad and Dilshad were not made party and impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to revisionist and other accused, which is against law.

¶12

In view of above, instant criminal revision is allowed . The impugned order passed by Sessions Judge is hereby set-aside.

¶13

Revisional court is directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to revisionist and other accused Zabbar, Nasim Ahmad and Dilshad.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Sharad/-

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awtar Singh Chug and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fatma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others