Allowed

Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. Dr.Tc Sadasukhi and Anr.

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2017CRLR/512/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition holding that the Court of revision set aside the summoning order without hearing the private complainant. The impugned order is set aside, and direction is given for a fresh order after affording hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.01.2006 set aside; directed to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to complainant.

Ajeet Singh Singhvi Vs Dr.Tc Sadasukhi and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 512 / 2009 Ajeet Singh Singhvi, S/o Late Sajjan Chand Singhvi, R/o B-218, Sadul Ganj, Bikaner.

¶3

----Petitioner

¶4

Dr.Tc Sadasukhi, Professor Department of Urology, SMS Hospital, Jaipur.

¶5

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶6

----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Dhand For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.R. Surana For State : Mr. Jeetendra Shrimali-P.P.

¶7

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order

¶8

17/07/2017

¶9

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the orders dated 09.08.2005 and 31.01.2006.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complaint was filed by the petitioner against the accused under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused were summoned under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide order dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure-2). Against the said order respondent No. 1 preferred a revision petition. The Court of revision allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure-3) without issuing any notice to the petitioner. It is a case of private complaint. The Court of revision

¶11

(2 of 2)

¶12

CRLMP-512/2009]

¶13

could not have allowed the revision petition without hearing the petitioner-complainant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand has opposed the petition.

¶15

In the present case, admittedly, revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Court of revision and the order passed by the trial Court ordering summoning of respondent No. 1 was set aside without issuing notice to the petitioner. Summoning order was passed on a private complainant. Court of revision was required to issue notice to the complainant before upsetting the order passed by the trial Court. The fact that the order passed by the trial Court summoning the accused was setaside by the Court of revision without hearing the complainant has caused serious prejudice to the complainant as the complainant remained unheard before the Court of revision. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 31.01.2006 is liable to be set aside.

¶16

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.01.2006 is set-aside. Court of revision is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant.

¶17

Parties are directed to appear before the Court of revision on 31.07.2017.

¶18

(SABINA) J.

¶19

Sudha/32

Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. Dr.Tc Sadasukhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. Dr.Tc Sadasukhi 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

Rambabu Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramniwas Singh Vs U O I and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Gautam Vs State Education Department Ors.

Subhash Chand Saini and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Satish Kumar Sharma Vs State Education Department Anr.

Dhiraj Babbar Vs Rajeev Pandey