IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.).No. 71 of 2006. [ENTITY] Petitioner. Versus 1. The [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY] Respondents. Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY]. For the Petitioner : Sri [ENTITY], Advocate For the Respondent : Sri [ENTITY], J.C. to G.P. II 12/21.06.2013
. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.02.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER], whereby and whereunder he dismissed the Criminal Revision.
(2) It appears that petitioner has filed aforesaid Criminal Revision for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2002 passed by C.J.M., [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER] City [CASE NUMBER]) whereby and whereunder he took cognizance against the petitioner under [SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] (3) It is submitted that learned Sessions Judge, [ENTITY] by the impugned order dismissed the revision, filed by the petitioner, merely on the ground that this Court had dismissed [CASE NUMBER] filed by other co-accused against the same impugned order. Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality because as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] vs. Purushottam Das Khandelwal and Another reported in (2004) 13 SCC-506 has held that it is imperative for the higher court to consider merit of the case of the petitioner and his case can not be dismissed merely on the ground that the case of another co-accused had been dismissed earlier. Accordingly, Sri [ENTITY] submits that the impugned order can not be sustained.
(4) On the other hand, Sri [ENTITY], learned J.C. to G.P. II, submits that the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, thus, as per [SECTION] of the [ACT] present writ application is not maintainable because it has been filed in the garb of second revision. Accordingly, he submits that this writ application is liable to be dismissed.
(5) Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case.
Admittedly the revision filed by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, [ENTITY] was dismissed. In this writ application the order passed in aforesaid revision has been challenged. Thus, prima facie, it appears that this writ application is not maintainable in view of provision of [SECTION] of the [ACT] But, Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] has held that the power of the High Court to entertain a petition under [SECTION] [ACT] was not subject to prohibition under [SECTION] of the Code and High Court is capable to entertain it in appropriate cases. (6) In the case of [PRECEDENT] their lordship of Supreme Court has held that :
"when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order."
(7) Thus, in view of the aforesaid two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, if there is patent illegality in the order of revisional court, this Court can entertain an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and/or under [SECTION] of the [ACT], to correct revisional order and cognizance order with a view to prevent failure of justice.
(8) In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the revisional court that the members of co-operative society or management of [ENTITY] Steel Plant and/or any body aggrieved with the allotment of land, had complained, therefore no case of cheating made out. This point has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge, [ENTITY]. The impugned order reveals that learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision merely on the ground that the quashing application preferred by co-accused under [SECTION] of the [ACT] was dismissed by High court. The aforesaid reason for dismissal of revision is on the teeth of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] case (supra). In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an impugned order passed by a High Court under [SECTION]. In that case the High Court dismissed the application filed by appellant merely on the ground that the application filed by another co-accused under [SECTION] has already been dismissed. After quoting the order of the concerned High court the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under [SECTION] of the [ACT] merely on the ground that petition filed by the co-accused against the same order has been dismissed. Their lordship further held that the High Court ought to have disposed of the application filed by appellant on its merit. Thus in my view if petitioner has filed a revision and raised certain points, then it is incumbent for the Sessions Judge to decide the same on merit. Since in this case learned Sessions Judge, [ENTITY] has not decided the case on merit and dismissed the case merely on the ground that the application filed by another co- accused under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been dismissed by the High Court. Thus aforesaid order is not inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality, therefore, it can not be sustained by this Court.
Accordingly, I allow this application and set aside the impugned order. The case is remitted back to the Sessions Judge, [ENTITY] for deciding the criminal revision on merit.
( [ENTITY], J.) [ENTITY]