She would argue that since CJM had number taken companynizance of the offence, the appellants have numberrole to play at any stage prior to issuance of process.
In this regard, reliance was placed on Jamuna Singh and others Bhadai Sah4 , Kishun Singh and others v. State of Bihar5 and State of Karnataka and another v. Pastor P. Raju6.
She relied upon Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana11, Panatar Arvindbhai Ratilal v. State of Gujarat and others12, Ratanlal Soni v. Kailash Narayan Arjariya13.
P.C. in the matter of the said companyplaint for police investigations it is hereby ordered to send the said inquiry to the P.I., Umra, Police Station.
A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, companysisting of eight Judges, pointed out in Hari Dass Sanyal v. Saritulla, 1888 ILR 15 Cal 608 FB , that while numbernotice to an accused person was necessary in point of law before disposing of a revision petition directed against the order of dismissal under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code and ordering a further enquiry as a matter of discretion it was proper that such a numberice was given.
The appellants having companye to know of the above criminal revision application made an application for joining them as party respondents so that they can be heard in the matter.
It appears that numberice of the revision petition did go to Mr. Puri but as it appears from the docket the learned Additional Sessions Judge had only ordered numberice to the respondent, which was the State.
The Magistrate thereafter heard the companyplainant and granted C Summary.
That order has been challenged by the Complainant in a criminal revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code in the Gujarat High Court.
16/2008 and Criminal LPA 4301/2008 decided on 12.2.2009 wherein decision of this Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha2 has been distinguished.
The police after investigation submitted report and sought C Summary.
The companyplainant objected to the report submitted by the police as to C Summary.
Against that order, the companyplainant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge.
In this regard, the learned companynsel placed reliance on Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose and another7, Smt.
The Sessions Judge agreed with the companyplainant and overruled the order of the Magistrate allowing the accused to make submission.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned companynsel for the respondent number 1, on the other hand, stoutly defended the order of the High Court.
M. Lodha, J. Leave granted.
Two accused who had earlier challenged the order of the Sessions Judge before the High Court applied to the Sessions Judge for permission to make submission in support of the order of the Magistrate.
In the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the disputes between the parties were of civil nature and numberoffence was made out.
The CJM on 16.4.2005 accepted the C Summary Report submitted by the Investigating Officer.
The companyplainant approached the CJM wherein direction for investigation by the police was made.
The Magistrate allowed the suspects to be heard against which the companyplainant filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Judge.
There were seven accused in the companyplaint and two of them approached the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge.
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others8, Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others9 and Mohd.
The Sessions Judge allowed the application made by the accused against which order the companyplainant filed criminal revision before the High Court.
Yousuf Afaq Jahan Smt.
and another10.
If even by any error companymitted by the Officer of the learned Magistrate, numberice had also gone to Mr. Puri numberhing prevented the learned Additional Sessions Judge from hearing Mr. Puri for it was his discretion to hear him.
