Dismissed

Nanak Chand v. Smt.nisha Minakshi Baghel And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2014CRMP/1137/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a revisional order. The revision was dismissed as not maintainable because the accused, Nisha Minakshi Baghel, was not impleaded despite her being a party in the original complaint. The court found no illegality in the lower court's decision. The petition failed.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed for lack of merit.

Nanak Chand Vs Smt.nisha Minakshi Baghel… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

$ENGLE BENGH

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. H3? /2013

¶4

PETITIONER COWLAINENT

¶5

w - ¢1€I§§i30NDENTs NON-APPLICANTS

¶6

\w"J

¶7

Nanak Chand aged about 28 years, S/o ate Dhan ai SuryavariShi, R/o Talwa Para, Janj gir, P. S. Jam/git, Distt. Janj girChampa (C.G.)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smt. Nisha Minakshi Baghel, W/o Maharati Baghel, D/o Sermon @ Simon S. Paigwar, Lecturar (Hindi); Hanuman Bagas Govt. Girls Hr. Sec. School, R/o Ward No. 19, Khadpadi Para, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, Distt, Janjgir-Champa (co)

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Janj gir—Champa.

¶11

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF

¶12

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶13

¶14

r. M.P. No.1137^‘or \C 2013

¶15

¶16

Nanak Chand RESPONDENT Vs. \ Smt. Nisha Minakshi Baghel and another

¶17

applicant case was dismissed.

¶18

$437 1.

¶19

Scheduled Caste and thereby, she has drawn the salary from the Government and also got further promotions on submission of the fake and false certificate.

¶20

After dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner on 26.6.2012, .the petitioner had filed Criminal Revision before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Janjgir, which Wasl registered as Cn'rninal Revision No.41/2012. The learned Revisional Court after hearing the petitioner had dismissed the revision on the ground^that Respondent No.1 Smt. Nisha Minakshi Baghel was not made a party in such revision and simply on that ground the. revision which was filed was dismissed as not maintainable for nonjoinder. The said order was passed by the learned RevisionalCourt on 27.4.2013, which is subject of challenge by this instant petition. 4. Learned. counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant was not a necessary party and it being a criminal case, the powers u/s 482 can be exercised so as to correct the illegality. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also ‘ gone^through the orders of the courts below. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner had not impleaded Nisha Minakshi Baghel as party^inthe array of respondents before the revisional Court. At the first instance, while the complaint case was filed before the trial Court, she was made a party as an accused and the entire allegations were made against the said Nisha Minakshi Baghel. In such complaint, it was alleged that she had shown herself to be ST instead of SC and had availed the benefit of which otherwise, she was not entitled. 6. , Any order passed in absence of a party which diminishes or e‘ncroaches upon a right, is a necessary party. When the criminal case was filed, Respondent No.1 was a party^and as such, the petitioner was under obligation to make her/him as party^inthe

¶21

¶22

revision petition. Therefom, this^{factcannotbeignoredthat} initially though she was made a party before the trial Court but subsequently before the-Revisional Court her^{namewasomitted.} 7. The argument advanced by learned counsel^forthe petitioner is that she was not a necessary party and^{itbeingacriminalcase,} ‘ the powers u/s 482 can be exercised^{soastocorrecttheillegality.} Admittedly, the powers under revision of Cr.P.C., the revisional Court has the power to reverse any^{findingofthelowerCourtand} give^{itsownfindingoftheCourtbearingontherecord.}

¶23

In the instant case, before the revisional Court respondent Nisha Minakshi Baghel was not arrayed as party, therefore, any order passed in her absence^wouldhave definitely prejudiced her right. In any case when the complaint^was filed wherein initially ' she was made a party and^{subsequentlyafterdismissalofthesaid} complaint when the revision^{wastiled,shewasanecessary} party^for the fact that the order^{ofthetrialCourtwasunderchallengebefore} the revisional Court Where initially she was made a party. The revisional Court having thus^{consideredhasdismissedtherevision.} 9. After going through the entire order, I do not find any illegality or perversity in^theorder passed^{bytheRevisionalCourt} dismissing the revision on the ground that before the learned. Revisional Court Smt.^{NishaMinakshiBaghel} ought to have been made a party and in absence^ofshe made a party, the revision^was not maintainable.

¶24

Accordingly, after going^through the^{entirerecord,} I am of the opinion that this is not^{afitcasetoextendtheexercise‘of} power^u/s 482 Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition has no merit and^isdismissed.

¶25

Sdl— Goutam^B'naduri Judge

¶26

Rao

Nanak Chand v. Smt.nisha Minakshi Baghel And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanak Chand v. Smt.nisha Minakshi Baghel And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Kaushik And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Bhikham Prasad Sharma Vs Shri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi And Anr.

Nandlal Deshmukh And Ors. Vs Shri R.p.mandal And Anr.

A.p. Kashyap Vs Harbans Singh Thakur

Sanjay Sharma Vs Rakesh Jaiswal

Amar Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shri D.k. Pradhan and Ors.