9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 979 - SC - Indian LawsWhether a suspect is entitled to hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the complainant challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Held that - Section 397 of the Code empowers the High Court or the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety, inter alia, of any order passed by such inferior court. The powers of revision are concurrent with the High Court and the Sessions Judge. By virtue of Section 399, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401 and while doing so the provisions of sub-sections (2),(3),(4) and (5) of Section 401 apply to such power as far as possible. Order passed by the CJM, there remains no doubt that on 18.06.2004, he had taken cognizance although he postponed issue of process by directing an investigation to be made by Police Officer. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the CJM had not taken cognizance in the matter and the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 at the pre-cognizance stage has no substance and is rejected - In the revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code, it was contended on behalf of the complainant that the Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking into consideration possible defence of the accused instead of ascertaining whether on a consideration of the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence, a prima facie case had been made out for summoning the accused for the offence mentioned in the complaint. It was also argued on behalf of the complainant before the High Court that the accused persons have not yet been summoned and even cognizance of the case has not been taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, there was no occasion at all for the accused persons to be heard In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the allegations of having committed offence have been made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 - although it is at preliminary stage - nevertheless results in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are alleged to have committed crime. In a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the revisional court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor they are entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process - Decided in favour of Appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a suspect is entitled to a hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the complainant challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of Suspect to Hearing in Revisional Court: The primary issue revolves around whether suspects have the right to be heard in a revision application filed by the complainant against an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code). The court examined the provisions of the Code, particularly Sections 156, 190, 200-203, 204, 210, 397, and 401, to determine the procedural and substantive rights of suspects at various stages of criminal proceedings. Cognizance and Dismissal of Complaint: The court clarified that the term "cognizance" means taking judicial notice of an offence and applying judicial mind to the facts mentioned in the complaint or police report. The court emphasized that the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 is a pre-process stage, but it results in the termination of the complaint proceedings. The court referred to previous rulings, including *Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker*, *Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose*, and *Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi*, to assert that the accused does not have a role in the inquiry under Section 202. Legal Provisions and Precedents: The court analyzed various legal provisions and precedents to determine the rights of suspects. Section 401(2) of the Code mandates that no order prejudicial to the accused or other persons can be passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The court explained that the expressions "prejudice," "other person," and "in his own defence" in Section 401(2) are significant and must be interpreted broadly to include suspects or persons alleged to have committed an offence. Hearing Rights of Suspects: The court held that suspects are entitled to a hearing in the revisional court when a complaint dismissed under Section 203 is challenged by the complainant. The court referred to its previous decisions in *P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar*, *Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited*, and *A. N. Santhanam v. K. Elangovan*, which supported the view that suspects have a right to be heard in such revision petitions. Conclusion: The court concluded that suspects have a right to be heard in a revision petition filed by the complainant against an order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. The court overruled contrary judgments of the High Courts and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellants' application for impleadment in the criminal revision petition. The High Court was directed to hear the matter and dispose of the criminal revision petition in accordance with the law. Final Order: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court was directed to hear the criminal revision petition with the involvement of the suspects, ensuring compliance with Section 401(2) of the Code.
|
