Crl. Misc. No.M-27670 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-27670 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.04.2010 Avtar Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Beant Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the Order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in case FIR No.136 dated 12.10.2005 under Sections 302/323/148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station B. Division, Amritsar and for restoring the Order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar accepting the cancellation/untraced report filed by the police. Crl. Misc. No.M-27670 of 2009 2 The facts, in short, are that in pursuance to the investigation in case FIR No.136 dated 12.10.2005 under Sections 302/323/148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, the cancellation report was submitted. However, the same was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide Order dated 10.07.2008. The complainant had no objection to the acceptance of the cancellation report. However, in spite of that, the complainant filed revision against the Order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. The present petitioners were not impleaded as party. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar accepted the revision against the said Order and set aside the order accepting the cancellation report. The said order was admittedly passed without hearing the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factual position but, however, vehemently opposed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that the impugned order has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners as the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar while setting aside the order has only remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for reconsidering and passing afresh orders after hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The facts are not disputed. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not heard and were not impleaded as party. The impugned order has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for setting aside an order vide which the cancellation report was accepted. A favourable order had been passed in favour of the petitioners. The same was set aside without hearing them. Thus, the Investigating Officer has rather prejudiced a right which had accrued to the petitioner. The said order has been passed without hearing. In the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the Crl. Misc. No.M-27670 of 2009 3 case titled as Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and another 2009(1) Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 801, the precise question was whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can pass an order in the absence of the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside and the impugned judgment was set aside and the High Court was directed to implead the appellant as a party in the criminal revision application, hear the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order thereafter. The same principle applies in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also does not dispute the said legal position. In view of the same, the ends of justice would be met, if the present petition is allowed and the Order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar to decide the revision afresh after hearing and granting opportunity to both the parties. The parties are directed to now appear before the trial Court through their respective counsel on 03.05.2010. The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is directed to dispose of the revision petition within three months of the parties appearing before the Court on the date fixed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Judge 21.04.2010 gurpreet