Crl. Rev. No. 240 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 240 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 10.8.2010 Pardeep ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. This revision petition by Pardeep – petitioner is directed against the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Narnaul vide which he accepted the revision petition filed by Sita Devi – respondent No.2/complainant, challenging the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul vide which he dismissed the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which a prayer was made for summoning the present petitioner as additional accused. One of the ground of revision before this Court is that the petitioner was not made a party in the revision petition preferred against order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and as such the impugned Crl. Rev. No. 240 of 2009 (O&M) -2- order was passed at his back without giving opportunity to him of being heard. It has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for the complainant that no such adverse order could have been passed by the revisional court at the back of the petitioner and he has no objection if the case is remanded back to the concerned Court for deciding the revision afresh. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul patently suffers from illegality. Once the order was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the petitioner as additional accused, the complainant was bound to implead him as a party in the revision petition. No adverse order could have been passed by the revisional Court at the back of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly this revision petition is hereby accepted. The impugned order is set aside without prejudice to the right of the complainant to file a fresh revision petition against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after impleading the present petitioner as a party. August 10, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge