Anil Sanyal vs State of H.P. and Others

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This revision has been directed against the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by Special Judge, Mandi. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Special Judge has erred in discharging Sudhur Chand,Rajiv Sood and Harish Kumar. It has been submitted that Sudhur Chand, Rajiv Sood and Harish Kumar are co-accused with the petitioner in the case.

I have perused the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. In the said report, Dharam Chand and Anil Kumar Sanyal have been named as accused, whereas, Sudhur Chand, Rajiv Sood and Harish Kumar have been shown in column 12 which column is meant for particulars of accused persons not charge-sheeted ( suspect). In the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C filed in the Court below, Sudhur Chand, Rajiv Sood, Harish Kumar have not been named as accused, but as suspects only. No doubt, the Special Judge, Mandi, has used expression discharged for Sudhur Chand, Rajiv Sood and Harish Kumar. Once Sudhur Chand, Rajiv Sood and Harish Kumar are not accused in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., there is no question of their discharge by the Special Judge vide order dated 22.06.2011. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2011 with respect to Sudhur Chand, Rajiv Sood and Harish Kumar. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 22.06.2011 for proceeding against him. There is no merit in the revision which is dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of in view of disposal of main petition. Record of the Court below be sent back if not required, in any, other connected cases.