Allowed

Om Prakash and Others v. Ghasi Ram

Uttarakhand HC18 Jul 2013C482/402/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed a criminal revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It followed the Apex Court in Om Kumar Dhankar to hold that criminal revision against a summoning order is maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The order dismissing the revision was accordingly quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar is quashed. Criminal revision is restored.

Om Prakash and Others Vs Ghasi Ram — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 402 of 2013.

¶2

Om Prakash and others. …….Petitioners.

¶3

Versus

¶4

Ghasi Ram. …......…. Respondent.

¶5

Present:

¶6

Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Tapan Singh and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent.

¶7

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

¶8

Criminal revision no. 505 of 2012 filed by petitioner no. 1 before Sessions Judge against the summoning order was dismissed by the 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide impugned order dated 20.02.2013 on the ground that criminal revision against the summoning order is not maintainable.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2012 (11) SCC 252 in paragraphs 9 and 10 has held under:

¶11

“9. Insofar as the first question is concerned, it is concluded by a later decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others Vs. Uttam reported in (1999) 3 SCC 134 . In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande case this Court considered earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, V.C. Shukla Vs. State reported in 1980 Supp. SCC 92, Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 and K.M.

¶12

¶13

Mathew Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1992) 1 SCC 217 and it was held as under :-

¶14

“6... This being the position of law, it would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory and therefore, the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397 would apply. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi-final and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same....”

¶15

10. In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was available to the respondent No. 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. The first question is answered against the appellant accordingly.”

¶16

In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar (supra), criminal revision is maintainable against the summoning order, therefore, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2013 passed by 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar is hereby quashed. Revision is restored to its original number on the file of 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Petitioners no. 2 to 6 are not parties before the Revisional Court. They may also file their revision within ten days. If such revision is filed within ten days, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be heard and decided along with criminal revision no. 505 of 2012. Petitioner no. 1 and

¶17

¶18

respondent are directed to remain present before the Revisional Court on 20.08.2013. Thereafter, Revisional Court shall decide the revision, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law.

¶19

(Alok Singh, J.) 18.07.2013

¶20

SKS

Om Prakash and Others v. Ghasi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash and Others v. Ghasi Ram

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

D.K.Rathi Vs C.B.I

P.K.Jain Vs C.B.I. through Spe Dehradun

Om Prakash Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Rajpal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt. Bhawana Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.