Petitioner Revisionist Resoondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.ia.P.No.726of2010 Jai Kumar Dahariya, son of Rajulai Dahariya, aged about 32 years, residence ofviliage Batgaon, PostJevra Sirsa, Police Station Puigaon, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus Dhanesh Finance And Leasing, Proprietor Accredit Dist'ibutor Director Through Attomey Dinesh Gupta, son of R.P.Gupta, aged about 31 years, residence of. Heeramoti Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Petition undsr Section 482 ofthe Gr.P.C.) $SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: Mr.Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 10"' January, 2011) 1. By this petition undsr Section 482 of ths Cr.P.C., the petitioner has chaitenged Isgality and propriety of the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in unregistered Criminal Case, whereby petition for restoration of Criminal Revision No.31/20TO dismissed for want of prosecution dated 9.2.2009 was dismissed for want of any prowsions in the Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard ieamed counsel for the parties. 3. As per arguments of both the parties and order impugned, after admitting the revision on motion, the revisiona! Court has issued notice to the respondent, but on the date of hearing revision was dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. Revisional Courts are competent to cali for and examine the recorct of any proceeding before any infsrior Criminal Court situate within te or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying 'rtself or himseif as to the correctness, iegaiity or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the rsgutarity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Power to examine the correctness, Ssgality or propriety of the order is vested with t'ne Court ® •~ 2-— and in case of revision admitted for consideration the Court is under obiigation to examine the legaiity and propriety of the order, but it appears that the Court has dismissed the revision for wantof prosecutlon. 4. By dismissing such revision for want of prosecution, admittediy, the Court bsiow has committed Hiegality vide order dated 9.2.2009 in Crimina! Revision No.31/2009 and vide order impugned the revisioRai Court has dismissed the petition for restoration of criminai revision. ; 5. Considering the grave illegaiity committed by the revisionai Court vide order dated 9.2.2009 passed in Crimina! Revision No.31/2(M)9, interference in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is necsssary. 6. Consequently, the petition is aiiowed. Order impugnsd and datsd 9.2.20M passed in Criminal Revision No.31/2009 are hereby set aside. The Court below is clirected to provide an opportunity of heartng to the parties and pass the order afresh on merits. The partiss are directed to remain present before the First Additionai Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon on 3.2.2010. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^/