2014 (6) TMI 917 - SC - Indian Laws

Right of hearing before the revisional court - Held that - In the present case challenge is laid to order dated 4.3.2009 at the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused mentioned in the First Information Report get the right of hearing before the revisional court although the impugned order therein was passed without their participation. The appellant who is an accused person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted. Though other grounds such as charge-sheet having been filed and the cognizance has been taken against accused No.1, the protest petition cannot be treated as a complaint warranting an independent inquiry, have been raised in this appeal, we do not deem it necessary to consider the same since we are remitting the matter for fresh consideration and it is open to the appellant to raise them before the High Court. In the result the impugned order of the High Court dated 18.4.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted and the High Court shall issue notice to all the concerned accused and thereafter hear and dispose of the criminal revision petition in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision of a criminal case without notice to the accused.
- Right to be heard under Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code.
- Remand of the case for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the High Court's order that remanded a criminal case without providing notice to the accused, raising concerns about the violation of the right to be heard under Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case originated from a murder complaint filed by the father of the respondent, leading to the discharge of four accused and the rejection of a protest-cum-complaint petition. The High Court's order was contested on the grounds of prejudicing the appellant, who was accused No.4 in the First Information Report, without granting an opportunity to present a defense.

2. The judgment referenced the legal position established in the Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia case regarding the accused's right to be heard during revision proceedings. It emphasized that the accused should have the opportunity to defend themselves before any order prejudicing them is made. In this context, the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code terminates the proceedings against the accused, necessitating their right to be heard during revision petitions challenging such dismissals.

3. The Court concluded that the High Court's order, issued without notice to the concerned accused, violated the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh consideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of affording the accused the right to be heard in revision proceedings, irrespective of the stage of the case or the absence of their participation in the initial order.

4. While other grounds, such as the filing of a charge-sheet and the nature of the protest petition, were raised in the appeal, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address them due to the remittance of the case for a new hearing. The decision emphasized the need for the High Court to issue notice to all concerned accused parties and proceed with the criminal revision petition in accordance with the law, ensuring the right to be heard and fair consideration for all involved parties.