Patna High Court: Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J. allowed the revision petition filed by the opposite party on grounds that fresh order be passed by including the unheard parties.
The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision against the order dated 17-01-2015 whereby and whereunder the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga, summoned the petitioners/opposite party nos. 2 to 9, finding prima facie case against them for the offence under Sections 323, 448 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, on inquiry under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while he was present on the date of the argument and had argued the case and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga, did not include his argument in the impugned order and also included in the impugned order about his non-appearance.
The cause title of the impugned order reflected the non-appearance of the learned counsel for complainant/petitioner, while the record of the trial court was showing that the complainant/ petitioner was present on the date of the argument of the case and he was also heard and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed. The impugned order also goes to show that the argument, as advanced on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, is not included therein and thus, without going into the merit of the case, the Court held that the impugned order dated 17-01-2015 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga, in Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2014 was liable to be set aside and the matter was remitted back to the court concerned for passing afresh/appropriate order, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law.
In view of the above-noted facts, the instant revision petition was allowed accordingly.[Ram Sewak Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1564, decided on 06-09-2019]