9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Review of judgment under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failure to implead necessary party, violation of natural justice.
Summary: 1. The applicant sought modifications of a judgment passed in a criminal case, stating errors and lack of impleading as a necessary party in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of a charge order. 2. The applicant filed a complaint leading to framing of charges against accused persons, including her husband and others, under IPC sections. Accused persons filed a revision petition without making the applicant a party. 3. Accused persons contended that no charge was framed under Section 406 IPC on a specific date, leading to dismissal of their revision petition. However, the applicant argued that charges were framed on that date. 4. The High Court found that the charges were indeed framed on the disputed date, leading to a limitation issue in the revision petition. 5. The accused persons failed to dispute the framing of charges on the disputed date, but argued against the High Court's jurisdiction to review the order under Section 362 of CrPC. 6. The High Court emphasized the importance of hearing the complainant in petitions seeking to quash charges, citing Supreme Court precedents. 7. The High Court recalled the order dated 18.11.2006 due to the violation of natural justice principles, directing a fresh hearing with the applicant being impleaded as a respondent. Separate Judgment: - In P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar, the High Court's order without hearing the respondent violated natural justice principles. - The High Court's order was deemed void due to the denial of the applicant's right to be heard, in line with established legal principles.
|
