- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2007 M.H.Patel ...Petitioner vs. Vinod Jumale & Othes ...Respondents Mr.M.H.Patel Petitioner in person present Mr.M.K.Kocharekar i/b Mr.K.S.Dewal for Respondent Nos.2&3. Mr.Dinanath G. Tiwari i/b Mr.Rohit Tiwari for Respondent No.1 Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 25,2008 : JULY 25,2008 : JULY 25,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person, the Advocate for the first Respondent and the Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.P.P for Respondent No.4. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 182, 463, 464, 465 r/w sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On the said private complaint, an order was passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The first Respondent filed a Revision Application for challenging the said order before the Sessions Court. By order dated 3rd September 2007, the Revision Application was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 24th August 2007 passed by the - 2 - learned Magistrate below the report submitted by the police. 3. It is an admitted position that the order dated 3rd September 2007 was passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad without notice to the petitioner appearing in person though he was impleaded as the first Respondent in the revision application. 4. Only on the ground that the petitioner-original complainant was not heard, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner appearing in person prays that he may be granted liberty to file appropriate proceeding. The substantive prayer made in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 3rd September 2007. Therefore, no occasion arises to grant any such liberty considering the limited scope of this petition. The petitioner appearing in person states that for the time being he is not pressing the prayer clause (iv) of this petition. In so far as the said prayer is concerned, it will be always open for the petitioner to prefer appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage. 5. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The impugned order dated 3rd September 2007 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision Application No.91 of - 3 - 2007 is restored to file of the Sessions Court. ii) The concerned court will decide the Revision Application afresh after giving notice to the parties to the Revision Application. iii) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are expressly kept open. iv) Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage as regards prayer clause (iv) of this petition. v) The Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. vi) There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE