Crl. Misc. No. M-1359 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1359 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 7,2011 Satpal and another .......................................................... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ........................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which revision against the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, has been accepted, in case FIR No. 56 dated 4.4.2005 under Sections 323/324/325/34 IPC registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. In the present case, the alleged occurrence took place on 4.4.2005 and both the sides received injuries and FIR No. 56 dated 4.4.2005 under Sections 323/324/325/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Ganaur, Crl. Misc. No. M-1359 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] District Sonepat. The police after investigation presented a challan against Ram Kumar, Indirawati, Parmila and Mukesh under Sections 323/324/325/34 IPC and another challan against Azad Singh, Naveen, Ritu and Sunil Kumari under Sections 323/325/34 IPC. The parties are facing trial and the prosecution witnesses have been examined in both the cases. The complainant-respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the case State v. Ram Kumar praying for summoning of the petitioners as additional accused. The trial Court dismissed this application vide its order dated 9.7.2010. The complainant challenged this order by way of revision which has been accepted. The order of the trial Court was set aside and the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was directed to re-consider the evidence and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the accused. Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that before setting aside the order of the trial Court the Revisional Authority should have given one opportunity to the accused to show cause as to why such an order should not be made. He has relied on the judgments in Syngenta India Limited and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2008 Cri. L.J. 2927, Ramswaroop and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2007 Cri. L.J. 1929 and Gurbachan Singh v. Ram Parkash 1996 (2) C.L.R. 247. In the aforementioned judgments the Courts were seized of a case in which the trial Court had dismissed the complaint. On revision, the order was set aside and was remitted back for fresh inquiry. The effect of dismissing the complaint is that the accused has been acquitted. In this background while exercising power under Section 398 Cr.P.C. the Court Crl. Misc. No. M-1359 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] was required to give notice to the person who has been discharged. The order of Sessions Judge was a non-speaking order and was bound to give opportunity of hearing to such person who had been discharged to show cause as to why such directions should not be made. The ratio of the judgments in Syngenta India Limited and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2008 Cri. L.J. 2927, Ramswaroop and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2007 Cri. L.J. 1929 and Gurbachan Singh v. Ram Parkash 1996 (2) C.L.R. 247 is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the present case, while disagreeing with the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, the Sessions Judge has given reasons to the effect that from the record it was apparent that the injuries suffered by Satpal and Joginder, accused, corroborated with the medical report. The opinion of the Investigating Agency was not based on the material on record. After setting aside the order dated 9.7.2010, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate is directed to reconsider the evidence after giving notice to the counsel. The order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat, suffers from no illegality. The criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. 7.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE