Supreme Court of India
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA & ANR.versusSHAILESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 439
- Decided
- 1 October 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
Holding
A suspect or accused must be given an opportunity of hearing under s.401(2) CrPC in any revision against a magistrate’s dismissal of a complaint under s.203, whether the dismissal occurs before or after cognizance, though no hearing is required in the subsequent magistrate proceedings until process is issued.
Summary
The complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, invoking s.202 CrPC, ordered a police investigation and later dismissed the complaint under s.203, stating the dispute was civil. The complainants sought revision under s.397 read with s.401(2) CrPC, and the accused/appellants applied to be impleaded so they could be heard. The High Court rejected the application. The Supreme Court held that the magistrate’s direction to investigate amounted to taking cognizance, making the dismissal a post‑cognizance act, and that under s.401(2) CrPC any person accused or suspected must be given an opportunity of hearing in a revision against a dismissal of a complaint, irrespective of the pre‑ or post‑process stage. However, once the complaint is restored to the magistrate, the accused has no right to participate until the magistrate considers issuance of process. The Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal, directing that the accused be heard in the revision petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a person accused or suspected is entitled to be heard under s.401(2) CrPC in a revision petition challenging a magistrate’s dismissal of a complaint under s.203.
- Whether the magistrate’s direction to police investigation constitutes taking cognizance, thereby making the dismissal post‑cognizance.
- Whether the stage of the proceedings (pre‑process or post‑process) affects the right to hearing in revision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156, s. 173, s. 190, s. 200, s. 202, s. 203, s. 204, s. 397, s. 398, s. 399, s. 401(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Subjects
Criminal ProcedureRevisionRight to be heardCognizanceSection 401(2) CrPCSection 203 CrPCSection 202 CrPCAccused rightsNatural justice
Judgment
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1015
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA & ANR. A
v.
SHAILESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1577 of 2012)
OCTOBER 1, 2012
B
[R.M. LODHA, CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
c
ss. 397and 401(2) read with ss. 202 and 203- Revision
against order u/s 203 dismissing the complaint - Right of the
person accused I suspect to be heard - Held: In the
proceedings uls. 202 the person accused/suspect is not
entitled to be heard on the question whether the process 0
should be issued against him or not - However, in a revision
petition preferred by complainant before High Court or
Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate
dismissing the complaint u/s. 203 at the stage u/s. 200 or after
following the process contemplated u/s. 202 of the Code, the E
person accused/suspect" is entitled to hearing by the
revisional court - The stage is not important whether it is pre-
process stage or post-process stage - If the revisional court
overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint
and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate for
fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the F
complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no
right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to
any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the.
consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of
process. G
ss. 200, 202 and 203 - Criminal complaint - Expression
'taking cognizance of an offence' - Connotation of -
Explained - Held: In the context of ss. 200, 202 and 203, the
1015 H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A expression 'taking cognizance' embraces within itself all
powers and authority in exercise of jurisdiction and taking of
authoritative notice of the complaint or the first information
report or the information that offence has been committed, on
application of judicial mind - It does not necessarily mean
B issuance of process - In the instant case, from the order of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing an inquiry to be made
by police, it becomes apparent that he had applied judicial
mind on the complaint and had taken cognizance that day
although he postponed issue of process by directing an
C investigation to be made by Police Officer - Therefore, it
cannot be said that the CJM had not taken cognizance in the
matter and the complaint was dismissed uls. 203 at the pre-
cognizance stage.
Words and Phrases:
D
Expression 'prejudice', 'other person' and 'in his own
defence' occurring in s.401(2) CrPC - Connotation of.
A complaint was filed against the appellants for
offences punishable u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
E IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 18.6.2004, in
exercise of his powers u/s 202 CrPC, directed the inquiry
to made by the police. The Investigating Officer, after
investigating into the matter submitted 'C' Summary
Report stating that the dispute between the parties was
F of a civil nature and no offence was made out. The said
report was accepted. The complainant filed a revision
petition u/s 397 read with s. 401 CrPC before the High
Court. The appellants filed an application for being
impleaded as respondents in the revision so that they
G could be heard in the matter. The High Court rejected the
application.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
H
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1017
MOHANBHAI PATEL
Procedure, 1973 has twin objects: one, to enable the A
Magistrate to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in
the complaint with a view to prevent a person named
therein as accused from being called upon to face an
unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint, and the
other, to find out whether there is some material to B
support the allegations made in the complaint. The
Magistrate has a duty to elicit all facts having regard to
the interest of an absent accused person and also to
bring to book a person or persons against whom the
allegations have been made. To find out this, the c
Magistrate himself may hold an inquiry u/s 202 or direct
an investigation to be made by a police officer. In that
event, the Magistrate in fact postpones the issue of
process. On conclusion of the inquiry by himself or on
receipt of report from the police officer or from such other
0
person who has been directed to investigate into the
allegations, if, in the opinion of Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, the complaint is dismissed u/s. 203 or where
the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient E
ground for proceeding, then a process is issued. The
dismissal of the complaint u/s. 203 is without doubt a pre-
issuance of process stage. [Para 23 and 27] [1034-C-F;
1038-G-H]
Vadila/ Panchal v. Dattatraya Du/aji Ghadigaonker and F
another (1961) 1 SCR 1; Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash
Chandra Bose and another 1964 (1) SCR 639; Smt.
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others
=
1976 Suppl. SCR 123 (1976) 3 SCC 736; Ada/at Prasad
v. Roop/a/ Jindal and others (2004) 7 SCC 338; Mohd. G
Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another (2006) 1 SCC 627
- relied on.
Pannanand Brahmachari v. Emperor AIR (1930) Patna
30; Radha Kishun Sao v. S.K. Misra and Anr. AIR (1949)
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A Patna 36; Ramkisto Sahu v. The State of Bihar AIR (1952)
Patna 125; Emperor v. J.A. Finan AIR (1931) Born 524;
Baidya Nath Singh v. Muspratt and others ILR (1886) XIV Cal
141 - referred to
8 1.2. Pertinently, Chapter XV uses the expression,
"taking cognizance of an offence" at various places.
Although the expression is not defined in the Code, but
it has acquired definite meaning for the purposes of the
Code. The word, "cognizance" occurring in various
C Sections in the Code is a word of wide import. It embraces
within itself all powers and authority in exercise of
jurisdiction and taking of authoritative notice of the
allegations made in the complaint or a police report or any
information received that the offence has been
committed. In the context of ss. 200, 202 and 203, the
D expression 'taking cognizance' has been used in the
sense of taking notice of the complaint or the first
information report or the information that offence has
been committed, on application of judicial mind. It does
not necessarily mean issuance of process. Thus, from
E the order of the CJM passed on 18.6.2004, it becomes
apparent that he had applied judicial mind on the
complaint and had taken cognizance that day although
he postponed issue of process by directing an
investigation to be made by Police Officer. Therefore, it
F cannot be said that the CJM had not taken cognizance
in the matter and the complaint was dismissed u/s. 203
at the pre-cognizance stage. [Paras 28, 37-39] [1039-B;
1042-8-D; 1043-A]
G R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1951) SCR
312; Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of
West Bengal 1960 SCR 93 =
AIR (1959) SC 1118 ;
Da1shan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra 1972 (1)
=
SCR 571 (1971) 2 SCC 654; Jamuna Singh and others
H v. Bhadai Sah (1964) 5 SCR 37; Kishun Singh and others v.
State of Bihar 1993 (1) SCR 31 = (1993) 2 SCC 16; State
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1019
MOHANBHAI PATEL
of Kamataka and another v. Pastor P. Raju 2006 (4) Suppl. A
SCR 269 =(2006) 6 SCC 728; State of West Bengal and
another v. Mohd. Khalid and others 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR
=
16 (1995) 1 sec 684 - relied on
2.1. The Code does not permit an accused person to
intervene in the course of inquiry by the Magistrate u/s. B
202. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the
proceedings u/s. 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is
not entitled to be heard on the question whether the
process should be issued against him or not. As a matter
of law, upto the stage of issuance of process, the C
accused cannot claim any right of hearing. Section 202
contemplates postponement of issue of process where
the Magistrate is of an opinion that further inquiry into the
complaint either by himself is required and he proceeds
with the further inquiry or directs an investigation to be D
made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he
thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding. [Paras 23 and 48]
[1032-F; 1051-C-D]
E
2.2. Parliament being alive to the legal position that
the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any
stage of the proceedings until issuance of process u/s.
204, yet in s. 401(2) of the Code provided that no order
in exercise of the power of the revision shall be made by
F
the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may
be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person
unlesl! he had an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own defence. Three
expressions, "prejudice", "other person" and ·"in his own
defence" in s. 401(2) are significant for understanding G
their true scope, ambit and width. "Prejudice" is generally
defined as meaning "to the harm, to the injury, to the
disadvantage of someone". It also means injury or loss.
The expression "other person" in the context of s.401 (2)
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A means a person other than accused. It includes suspects
or the persons alleged in the complaint to have been
involved in an offence although they may not be termed
as accused at a stage before issuance of process. The
expression "in his own defence" comprehends, inter alia,
8 for the purposes of s.401 (2), in defence of the order which
is under challenge in revision before the Sessions Judge
or the High Court. [Paras 48, 51-53] [1051-E-H; 1052-E-G]
Black's Law Dictionary [Eighth Edition]; English
Dictionary {Tenth Edition, Revised]; Webster Comprehensive
C Dictionary [International Edition] and P. Ramanatha Aiyer; the
Law Lexicon [The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary] - referred
to
2.3. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate u/
D s. 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. On a plain reading of sub-s. (2) of s.401, it cannot
be said that the person against whom the allegations of
E . having committed offence have been made in the
complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate u/s 203, has no right to be heard because no
process has been issued. Once a challenge is laid to
such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision
petition before the High Court or Sessions Judge, by
F virtue of s. 401 (2), the suspects get right of hearing before
revisional court although such order was passed without
their participation. [Para 54] [1052-H; 1053-A-D]
2.4. The right given to "accused" or "the other
G person" uls. 401 (2) of being heard before the revisional
court to defend an order which operates in his favour
should not be confused with the proceedings before a
Magistrate u/ss. 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision
petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at
H the instance of complainant challenging the order of
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIAv. SHAILESHBHAI 1021
MOHANBHAI PATEL
dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could A
happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and
revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the matter that
the accused or other person cannot be deprived of
hearing on the face of express provision contained in s.
401 (2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it B
is pre-process stage or post-process stage. [Para 54]
[1054-E-G]
2.5. This Court, therefore, holds that in a revision
petition preferred by complainant before the High Court C
or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the
Magistrate dismissing the complaint u/s. 203 of the Code
at the stage u/s. 200 or after following the process
contemplated u/s.202 of the Code, the accused or a
person who is suspected to have committed the crime is
entitled to hearing by the revisional court. Where D
complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate u/s. 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 E
right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain
requirement of s. 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 F
persons who are alleged in the complaint to have
committed the crime have, however, no right to
participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any
hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the
consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance G
of process. The judgments of the High Courts to the
contrary are overruled. [Para 58] [1057-A-F]
P. Sundarrajan and others v. R. Vidhya Sekar (2004) 13
SCC 472; Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram H
Promoters Private Limited and another 2008 (17) SCR 833
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A =(2009) 2 SCC 363; A. N. Santhanam v. K. Elangovan 2011
(2) JCC 720 (SC) - upheld.
Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana ILR 2001 (2) P & H
388, Panatar Arvindbhai Ratilal v. State of Gujarat and others
1991 (1) Vol. 32 GLR 451, Ratanlal Soni v. Kai/ash Narayan
8
Aljariya1998 (2) MPLJ 321; Tata Motors Limited v. State
Criminal Revision Petition No. 16/2008 and Criminal LPA
4301/2008) decided by Delhi High Court on 12.2.2009;
Prakash Devi and others v. State of Delhi and another
C Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2626/2009 decided by
Delhi High Court on February 5, 2010 - overruled.
AS. Puri v. K.L. Ahuja AIR 1970 Delhi 214 - referred
to
0 2.6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 5.8.2005
cannot be sustained and, is set aside. The appellants'
application for impleadment in the criminal revision
petition stands allowed. The High Court shall hear the
matter and dispose of the criminal revision petition in ace
E ordance with law. [Para 59] [1057-G]
Case Law Reference:
(2004) 13 sec 472 upheld Para 10
2008 (17) SCR 833 = upheld Para 10
F
2011 (2) JCC 720 (SC) upheld Para 10
(1964) 5 SCR 37 relied on para 12
1993 (1) SCR 31 relied on Para 12
G 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 269 relied on Para 12
1964 (1) SCR 639 relied on Para 13
1976 Suppl. SCR 123 relied on Para 13
H (2004) 1 sec 338 relied on Para 13
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1023
MOHANBHAI PATEL
(2006) 1 sec 627 relied on Para 13 A
ILR 2001 (2) P & H 388 overruled para 14
1991 (1) Vol. 32 GLR 451 overruled para 14
1998 (2) MPLJ 321 overruled para 14 B
Criminal Revision Petition
No. 16/2008 and Criminal
LPA 4301/2008) decided by
Delhi High Court on 12.2.2009 overruled para 14
Criminal Miscellaneous
c
Case No. 2626/2009
decided by Delhi High Court
on 5.2.2010 overruled para 14
AIR 1970 Delhi 214 - referred to D
(1961) 1 SCR 1 relied on Para 23
AIR (1930) Patna 30 referred to Para 24
AIR (1949) Patna 36 referred to Para 24 E
AIR (1952) Patna 125 referred to Para 24
AIR (1931) Born 524 referred to Para 24
ILR (1886) XIV Cal 141 referred to Para 24 F
(1951) SCR 312 relied on Para 29
1960 SCR 93 relied on Para 30
1972 (1) SCR 571 relied on Para 31 G
1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 16 relied on Para 33
AIR 1970 Delhi 214 referred to para 47
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120121 8 s.c:R.
A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1577 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.8.2005 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Criminal Application
No. 8210 of 2005 in Criminal Revision Application No. 482 of
B 2005.
Shyam Divan, Shamik Sanjanwala, Bina Madhavan, Karan
Kanwal (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Appellants.
C Hemantika Wahi, Jesal, Nandini Gupta, Meenakshi Arora
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. The sole question for consideration is, whether 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
E Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Code').
3. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice
it to say that Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, respondent no. 1,
filed a criminal complaint on 15.5.2004 in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Surat (for short 'CJM') against Manharibhai
F Muljibhai Kakadia and Paresh Lavjibhai Patel, appellants,
alleging that they had pre-planned a conspiracy; created forged
documents bearing signatures of the complainant, his father
and uncle, two sons of his uncle and his elder brother and have
used the said documents as true and genuine by producing the
G same before the District Registrar, Cooperative Society,
Nanpura, and by making false representation obtained
registration of lndoregency Cooperative Housing Society
Limited and by doing so the accused (appellants) have caused
financial loss and physical and mental agony to the complainant
H and his family members and have deceived the complainant
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1025
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
•
and his family members by obtaining huge financial advantage A
by taking possession of the complainant's property. It was, thus,
alleged that the appellants have committed offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC.
4. The CJM in exercise of his power under Section 202 B
of the Code by his order dated 1B.6.2004 directed the enquiry
to be made by the Police Inspector, Umra Police Station, into
the allegations made in the complaint and submit his report
within thirty days therefrom.
5. The Investigating Officer investigated into the matter and C
submitted 'C' Summary Report. In the opinion of the
Investigating Officer, the disputes between the parties were of
civil nature and no offence was made out.
6. The CJM on 16.4.2005 accepted the 'C' Summary o
Report submitted by the Investigating Officer. 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.
7. The appellants having come to know of the above E
criminal revision application made an application for joining
them as party respondents so that they can be heard in the
matter.
B. On 5.B.2005, the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court F
dismissed the application made by the appellants .. It is from this
order that present appeal has arisen.
9. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior
counsel for the app_ellants and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned G
counsel for respondent no. 1.
10. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the
appellants argued that the plain language of Section 401 (2) of
the Code entitles the appellants to be heard in the criminal
revision application filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R .
•
A the order of the CJM. According to learned senior counsel,
appellants have a right to be heard in the revision application
filed by the complainant as no order could be made to the
prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he has had
an opportunity of being heard under Section 401 (2) of the
s Code. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the result
of acceptance of the 'C' Summary Report is that criminal
proceedings launched by the complainant have come to an end
and if the revision application preferred by the complainant is
accepted, that would have the effect of revival of the complaint
c and setting the criminal process back in motion which would
be definitely prejudicial to the appellants and before any such
prejudicial order is passed, the appellants ought to be heard.
In support of the above contentions, learned senior counsel
relied upon decisions of this Court in P. Sundarrajan and
others v. R. Vidhya Sekar', Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v.
D Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and anothei'-
and A. N. Santhanam v. K. Elangovan 3 •
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel would also
argue that expression, "in his own defence" in Section 401 (2)
E is a comprehensive expression which also means 'in defence
of the order' under challenge in revisional jurisdiction. Learned
senior counsel submitted that "prejudice" may cover wide range
of situations and must be considered in wider sense. Section
401 does not make any distinction between pre-process stage
F and post-process stage. Sub-section (2) of Section 401 is
applicable regardless and whether or not process has been
issued under Section 204 of the Code.
12. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that
G cognizance had been taken by the CJM. Cognizance is not
equivalent to issuance of process; it is taken prior to issuance
of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the
1. (2004) 13 sec 472.
2. (2009) 2 sec 363.
H 3. 2011 (2) JCC 720 (SC)
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1027
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in A
the complaint or to the police report or upon information
received from any other person that an offence has been
committed. In this regard, reliance was placed on Jamuna
Singh and others v. Bhadai Sah4 , Kishun Singh and others
v. State of Bihar° and State of Kamataka and another v. Pastor B
P. Raju6.
13. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1, on the other hand, stoutly defended the order
of the High Court. She would argue that since CJM had not C
taken cognizance of the offence, the appellants have no role
to play at any stage prior to issuance of process. She referred
to certain provisions, including Chapters XIV, XV and XVI, and
also Sections 156, 173, 190 and 202 of the Code. Learned
counsel for the respondent no. 1 argued that since the subject
revision petition had been filed by the respondent no. 1 against D
the dismissal of the complaint at a pre-cognizance stage, the
appellants do not have any right of hearing under the provisions
of Section 401 (2) of the Code. In this regard, the learned
counsel placed reliance on Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash
Chandra Bose and anothefl, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna E
Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others8, Ada/at Prasad v. Roop/al
Jindal and others9 and Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt.)
and another10 •
14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 also relied F
upon decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madhya
Pradesh High Court and Gujarat High Court in support of her
submission that accused has no right of hearing under Section
4. (1964) 5 SCR 37.
s. (1993) 2 sec 16. G
6. (2006) 6 sec na.
7. 1964 (1) SCR 639.
8. (1976) 3 sec 736.
s. (2004) 1 sec 338.
10. (2006) 1 sec 627. H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A 401 (2) in a revision against an order by which a complaint has
been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the
Code. She relied upon Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana",
Panatar ANindbhai Rafi/a/ v. State of Gujarat and others 12,
Ratanlal Soni v. Kai/ash Narayan Arjariya 13 . She also relied
B upon a decision of Delhi High Court in Tata Motors Limited v.
State (Criminal Revision Petition No. 16/2008 and Criminal
LPA 4301/2008) decided on 12.2.2009 wherein decision of
this Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha 2 has been
distinguished.
c 15. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 would submit
that decision of this Court in P. Sundarrajan' was not
applicable to the fact situation of the present case inasmuch
as in that case, the accused were party in the revision petition
whereas in the subject revision the appellants have not been
D allowed to be impleaded as party respondents and the
impugned order has been passed on the application for
impleadment. While referring to A.N. Santhanam 3 , learned
counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that this case too
was not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that
E case the complainants were examined under Section 200 of
the Code whereas in the present case the CJM has accepted
the 'C' Summary Report under Section 173 after the
investigation was done by the police.
F 16. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, some of
the provisions of the Code need to be referred to. Section 156
deals with Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable
case. It reads as follows:
"S. 156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable
G case. - (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may,
without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any
11. ILR 2001 (2) P & H 388.
12. 1991 (1) Vol. 32 GLR 451.
H 13. 1998 (2) MPLJ 321.
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1029
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the A
local area within the limits of such station would have
power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter
XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall 8
at any stage be called in question on the ground that the
case was one which such officer was not empowered
under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may
order such an investigation as.above mentioned." C
17. Section 190 falls in Chapter XIV and reads as under:
"S. 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. - (1)
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate D
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class
specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2),
may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
such offence; E
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than
a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed. F
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any
Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under
sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try." G
18. Chapter XV of the Code deals with the complaints to
Magistrates. It has four Sections, 200 to 203, which read as
under:
H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A "S. - 200. Examination of Complainant.- A Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall
examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses
present, if any, and the substance of such examination
shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the
8 complainant and the witnesses, and also by the
Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the
Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the
witnesses-
c
(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duties or a court has made the
complaint; or
D (b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry, or trial
to another Magistrate under section 192:
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case
to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining
the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate
E need not re-examine them.
S. 201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take
cognizance of the case.- If the complaint is made to a
Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the
F offence, he shall, -
(a) If the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation
to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect;
(b) If the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant
G to the proper court.
S. 202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) Any
Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of
which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has
H been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1031
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is A
residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the
accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct
an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding s
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be
made-
(a) Where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence C
complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of
Sessions; or
(b) Where the complaint has not been made by a Court,
unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) 0
have been examined on oath under section 200.
(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may,
if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence E
complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session,
he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his
witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a
F
person not being a police officer, he shall have for that
investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an
officer in charge of a police station except the power to
arrest without warrant.
S. 203. Dismissal of complaint-If, after considering the G
statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the
witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if
any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall
briefly record his reasons for so doing."
19. Chapter XVI of the Code has Sections 204 to 210.
Section 204 deals with the issuance of process by the
Magistrate. The process is issued by the Magistrate if in his
8
opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
20. Section 210 provides for procedure to be followed
when there is complaint case and police investigation in respect
of the same offence. It reads as under:
c
"S. 210. Procedure to be followed when there is a
complaint case and police investigation in respect of the
same offence.-(1) When in a case instituted otherwise
than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a
D complaint case), ii is made to appear to the Magistrate,
during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an
investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the
offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held
by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such
inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the
E
police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer
under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any
offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who
F is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall
inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case
arising out of the police report as if both the cases were
instituted on a police report.
G
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in
the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take
cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall
proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him,
in accordance with the provisions of this Code."
H
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1033
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
21. Section 397 of the Code empowers the High Court or A
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 B
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 c
apply to such power as far as possible. Section 401 deals with
High Court's power of revision and it reads as follows :
"S. 401. High Court's powers of revision.-(1) In the case
of any proceeding the record of which has been called for
by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the D
High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the
powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386,
389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307
and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are
equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of E
in the manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order unde• this section shall be made to the
prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has
had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by F
pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.
G
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal
is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be
entertained at the instance of the party who could have
appealed.
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an
application for revision has been made to the High Court
by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such
application was made under the erroneous belief that no
appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests
B of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application
for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same
accordingly."
22. In light of the above provisions, the question for
consideration before us is to be examined.
c
23. Section 202 of the Code has twin objects; one, to
enable the Magistrate to scrutinize carefully the allegations
made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named
therein as accused from being called upon to face an
D unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint and the other, to
find out whether there is some material to support the
allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate has a duty
to elicit all facts having regard to the interest of an absent
accused person and also to bring to book a person or persons
E against whom the allegations have been made. To find out the
above, the Magistrate himself may hold an inquiry under Section
202 of the Code or direct an investigation to be made by a
police officer. The dismissal of the complaint under Section 203
is without doubt a pre-issuance of process stage. The Code
F does not permit an accused person to intervene in the course
of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202. The legal
position is no more res integra in this regard. More than five
decades back, this Court in Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya
Dulaji Ghadigaonker and another• with reference to Section
G 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to
Section 202 of the present Code) held that the inquiry under
Section 202 was for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or
falsehood of the complaint, i.e., for ascertaining whether there
was evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the
H 14. (1961) 1 SCR 1.
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1035
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
issuance of process and commencement of proceedings A
against the person concerned.
24. In Chandra Deo Singh 7 , a four-Judge Bench of this
Court had an occasion to consider Section 202 of the old
Code. The Court referred to the earlier decision of this Court
B
in Vadi/al Pancha/1 4 and few previous decisions, namely,
Parmanand Brahmachari v. Emperor15, Radha Kishun Sao
v. S.K. Misra and Anr. 16 , Ramkisto Sahu v. The State of
Bihar11 , Emperor v. J.A. Finan 18 , Baidya Nath Singh v.
Muspratt and others 19 and it was held that the object of
provisions of Section 202 (corresponding to present Section C
202 of the Code) was to enable the Magistrate to form an
opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to
remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon
the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the
complainant's evidence on oath. It was further held that an D
accused person does not come into the picture at all till process
is issued. ·
25. In Smt. Nagawwa 8 , this Court had an occasion to
consider the scope of the inquiry by the Magistrate under E
Section 202 of the old Code. This Court referred to the earlier
two decisions in Vadilal Pancha/1 4 and Chandra Deo Singh7
and in para 4 of the Report held as under:
"4. It would thus be clear from the two decisions of this
Court that the scope of the inquiry under Section 202 of F
the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited -
limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or. falsehood
of the allegations made in the complaint- (1) on the
materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii)
for the limited purpqse of finding out whether a prima facie G
15. AIR (1930) Patna 30.
16. AIR (1949) Patna 36.
17. AIR (1952) Patna 125.
18. AIR (1931) Born 524.
19. ILR (1886) XIV Cal 141.
H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for
deciding the question purely from the point of view of the
complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the
accused may have. In fact it is well settled that in
proceedings under Section 202 the accused has got
B absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard
on the question whether the process should be issued
against him or not."
26. In Ada/at Prasad", a three-Judge Bench of this Court
had an occasion to consider Sections 200, 202 and 204 of the
C Code. The scheme of the above provisions was explained in
the following manner:
"12. Section 200 contemplates a Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine the
D complaint and examine upon oath the complainant and the
witnesses present, if any. If on such examination of the
complaint and the witnesses. if any, the Magistrate if he
does not want to postpone the issuance of process has
to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 if he comes
E to the conclusion that the complaint. the statement of the
complainant and the witnesses have not made out
sufficient ground for proceeding. Per contra, if he is
satisfied that there is no need for further inquiry and the
complaint. the evidence adduced at that stage have
materials to proceed, he can proceed to issue process
F
under Section 204 of the Code.
13. Section 202 contemplates "postponement of issue of
process". It provides that if the Magistrate on receipt of a
complaint. if he thinks fit, to postpone the issuance of
G process against the accused and desires further inquiry
into the case either by himself or directs an investigation
to be made by a police officer or by such other person as
he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may do so. In
H that process if he thinks it fit he may even take evidence
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1037
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J ]
of witnesses on oath, and after such investigation, inquiry A
and the report of the police if sought for by the Magistrate
and if he finds no sufficient ground for proceeding he can
dismiss the complaint by recording briefly the reasons for
doing so as contemplated under Section 203 of the Code.
B
14. But after taking cognizance of the complaint and
examining the complainant and the witnesses if he is
satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the
complaint he can issue process by way of summons under
Section 204 of the Code. Therefore, what is necessary or
a condition precedent for issuing process under Section C
204 is the satisfaction of the Magistrate either by
examination of the complainant and the witnesses or by
the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint hence
issue the process under Section 204 of the Code. In none D
of these stages the Code has provided for hearing the
summoned accused, for obvious reasons because this is
only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the
accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided
for in the latter provision in the Code. It is true as held by E
this Court in Mathew case [(1992) 1 SCC 217] that before
issuance of summons the Magistrate should be satisfied
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the
complaint but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by the
inquiry conducted by him as contemplated under Sections F
200 and 202, and the only stage of dismissal of the
complaint arises under Section 203 of the Code at which
stage the accused has no role to play, therefore, the
question of the accused on receipt of summons
approaching the court and making an application for G
dismissal cif the complaint under Section 203 of the Code
on a reconsideration of the material available on record
is impermissible because by then Section 203 is already
over and the Magistrate has proceeded further to Section
204 stage. H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A 15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an
offence, issues process without there being any allegation
against the accused or any material implicating the
accused or in contravention of provisions of Sections 200
and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but
B then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that
stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because
the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a
review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review
power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal
c courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of the
Code."
27. The procedural scheme in respect of the complaints
made to Magistrates is provided in Chapter XV of the Code.
On a complaint being made to a Magistrate taking cognizance
D of an offence, he is required to examine the complainant on
oath and the witnesses, if any, and then on considering the
complaint and the statements on oath, if he is of the opinion
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the complaint
shall be dismissed after recording brief reasons. The Magistrate
E may also on receipt of a complaint of which he is authorised
to take cognizance proceed with further inquiry into the
allegations made in the complaint either himself or direct an
investigation into the allegations in the complaint to be made
by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for
F the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding. In that event, the Magistrate in fact postpones
the issue of process. On conclusion of the inquiry by himself or
on receipt of report from the police officer or from such other
person who has been directed to investigate into the
G allegations, if, in the opinion of Magistrate taking cognizance
of an offence there is no sufficient ground for proceeding,
complaint is dismissed under Section 203 or whertil the
Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, then a process is issued. In a summons case,
H summons for the attendance of the accused is issued and in a
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1039
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
warrant case the Magistrate may either issue a warrant or a A
summons for causing the accused to be brought or to appear
before him.
28. Pertinently, Chapter XV uses the expression, "taking
cognizance of an offence" at various places. Although the 8
expression is not defined in the Code, but it has acquired
definite meaning for the purposes of the Code.
29. In R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 20, this
Court stated that taking cognizance did not involve any formal
action or indeed action of any kind but it takes place no sooner C
a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of
an offence.
30. In Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State
of West Bengal", this Court considered the expression, "take 0
cognizance of offence" with reference to Sections 190(1 )(a},
200 and 202 and held as under :
" ...... As to when cognizance is taken of an offence will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and it is impossible to attempt to define what is meant by E
taking cognizance. Issuing of a search warrant for the
purpose of an investigation or of a warrant of arrest for that
purpose cannot by themselves be regarded as acts by
which cognizance was taken of an offence. Obviously, it
is only when a Magistrate applies his mind for the purpose F
of proceeding under S. 200 and subsequent sections of
Ch. XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under S. 204
of Ch. XVII of the Code that it can be positively stated that
he had applied his mind and therefore had taken
cognizance." G
31. In Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of
20. (1951) SCR 312.
21. AIR (1959) SC 1118. H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A Maharashtra 22 , the Court reiterated what was stated in R.R.
Chan20 . It was further explained that cognizance takes place at
a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an
offence on a complaint, or a police report, or upon information
of a person other than a police officer.
B
32. In Kishun Singh', while dealing with the expression
"taking cognizance of an offence" the Court said that cognizance
can be said to be taken by a Magistrate when he takes notice
of the accusations and applies his mind to the allegations made
in the complaint or police report or information and on being
C satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an
offence, decides to initiate judicial proceedings against the
alleged offender.
33. In State of West Bengal and another v. Mohd. Khalid
D and others23, the expression, "taking cognizance of an offence"
has been explained in paragraph 43 of the Report which reads
as follows:
"43. Similarly, when Section 20-A(2) of TADA makes
sanction necessary for taking cognizance - it is only to
E
prevent abuse of power by authorities concerned. It
requires to be noted that this provision of Section 20-A
came to be inserted by Act 43 of 1993. Then, the question
is as to the meaning of taking cognizance. Section 190 of
the Code talks of cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
F This expression has not been defined in the Code. In its
broad and literal sense, it means taking notice of an
offence. This would ir.clude the intention of initiating judicial
proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence
or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for
G initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. The
word 'cognizance' indicates the point when a Magistrate
or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is
22. (1971) 2 sec 654.
H 23. (1995) 1 sec 684
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1041
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; A
rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of
proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance
is taken of cases and not of persons."
34. The above cases where the expression, "taking B
cognizance of an offence" for the purposes of the Code (old
as well as new) has been explained have been noted by a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in Pastor P. Raju6. The Court in para
13 of the Report referred to the distinction between "taking
cognizance of an offence" and "issuance of process" and C
observed as under:
"13 ......... Cognizance is taken at the initial stage wnen the
Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned
in a complaint or to a police report or upon information
received from any other person that an offence has been D
committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent
stage when after considering the material placed before
it the court decides to proceed against the offenders
against whom a prima facie case is made out."
E
35. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the
direction by the CJM to the Police Officer to investigate into
the allegations made in the complaint amounts to taking
cognizance of an offence and the dismissal of the complaint
by the CJM under Section 203 of the Code was after he had F
taken cognizance of the offence. On the other hand, on behalf
of the respondent no. 1, it was vehemently contended that
dismissal of complaint by the CJM under Section 203 of the
Code was at a pre-cognizance stage. The submission on behalf
of the respondent no. 1 is that no cognizance has been taken
by the CJM while directing the Police Officer to investigate into G
the allegations of the complaint.
36. We shall immediately advert to the aspect whether or
not CJM had taken cognizance of the offence and whether the
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 in the matter was
post-taking cognizance.
37. The word, "cognizance" occurring in various Sections
in the Code is a word of wide import. It embraces within itself
8 all powers and authority in exercise of jurisdiction and taking
of authoritative notice of the allegations made in the complaint
or a police report or any information received that offence has
been committed. In the context of Sections 200, 202 and 203,
the expression 'taking cognizance' has been used in the sense
C of taking notice of the complaint or the first information report
or the information that offence has been committed on
application of judicial mind. It does not necessarily mean
issuance of process.
38. Having regard to the above legal position, if the order
D of the CJM passed on 18.6.2004 is seen, it becomes apparent
that he had applied judicial mind on the complaint that day. The
order records, "on perusing the complaint and the
accompanying documents, in the said matter it is necessary
to take into custody the documents mentioned in the complaint.
E It is necessary to find out the persons who have forged
signatures on such documents, and record their statements, and
to compare the said signatures with the signatures of the family
members of the complainant, and in this regard obtain the
opinion from the Handwriting Expert, in view of all this such
F investigations cannot be done by the Court, in view of this fact
below Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the matter of the said
complaint for police investigations it is hereby ordered to send
the said inquiry to the P.I., Umra, Police Station. And, he is
ordered to investigate thoroughly in this matter and within 30
G days present the report before this Court".
39. From the above 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
H the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the CJM had
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1043
MOHANBHAI PATEL [RM. LODHA, J.]
not taken cognizance in the matter and the complaint was A
dismissed under Section 203 at the pre-cognizance stage has
no substance and is rejected.
•
40. The question now is, in a matter of this nature where
complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section
B
203 post-cognizance stage and pre-issuance of process,
whether on challenge to the legality of the order of dismissal of
complaint being laid by the complainant in a revision application
before the High Court, the persons who are arraigned as
accused in the complaint have a right to be heard.
c
41. Before we deal with the above question further, some
of the decisions of the High Courts upon which heavy reliance
was placed by the counsel for the respondent no. 1 may be
noticed. In Panatar Arvindbhai Ratila/1 2 , a Single Judge of the
Gujarat High Court had an occasion to consider locus standi D
of the suspects at the stage of grant of 'C' Summary. That was
a case where the police did not initiate any investigation for
quite some time in respect of an offence registered with the
police station. The complainant approached the CJM wherein
direction for investigation by the police was made. The police E
after investigation submitted report and sought 'C' Summary.
The complainant objected to the report submitted by the police
as to 'C' Summary. The Magistrate allowed the suspects to be
heard against which the complainant filed the criminal revision
before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge agreed with F
the complainant and overruled the order of the Magistrate
allowing the accused to make submission. There were seven
accused in the complaint and two of them approached the High
Court against the order of the Sessions Judge. The Single
Judge of the High Court confirmed the order of Sessions Judge.
The Magistrate thereafter Heard the complainant and granted G
'C' Summary. Against that order, the complainant filed a
revision before the Sessions Judge. Two accused who had
earlier challenged the order of the Sessions Judge before the
High Court applied to the Sessions Judge for permission to H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 8 S.C.R.
A make submission in support of the order of the Magistrate. The
Sessions JuQge allowed the application made by the accused
against which order the complainant filed criminal revision
before the High Court. The High Court noted the provisions
contained in Sections 397(2) and 403 of the Code and then
s held that allowing the suspects to be heard at this stage would
amount to permitting them to have their say at the stage which
is not contemplated by the Code and it would be giving a
premature hearing to the accused. The High Court was
persuaded by the submission of the complainant that an
c accused cannot be given pre-trial hearing. The High Court
observed as follows :
"6. The views consistently expressed by this Court as well
as by the Supreme Court about the hearing of the suspects
at the stage of granting of 'C' summary or not is clearly to
D the effect that they have no locus standi.
7. In this background we turn to the submission made
under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by
learned Advocate Shri J.R. Nanavati. There again at first
E sight it might appear that party referred to in the said
section could be a party other than one arrayed before the
Court on either side, but when we realise that the matter
to be dealt with under Chapter 30 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure wherein occurs Section 403 power is that of a
Revision and it being the power exercised by the Court, a
F
party may or may not be heard as the Court may decide
and this alone would explain the inclusion of Section 403
in that Chapter.
8. Otherwise all the procedural laws have as its foundation
G the maxim Audi Alterem Partem and at all stages wherever
the need be there are provision for issuance of notice and
making sure that the party against whom the orders are
being sought is heard. Therefore, there was no need of
inclusion of Section 403 at the place where we find it and
H we can appreciate it only and only if bearing in mind the
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI · 1045
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
fact that it being a chapter dealing with revisional A
jurisdiction which is expressly privilege of the Court
realising the order of subordinate Court that there migrt
be an occasion, the party need not be or may not be heard,
and therefore, there is a specific provision in that behalf.
B
9. Once we appreciate the aforesaid section in this light
of submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Nanavati
pertaining to the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High
Court as well as that of the Supreme Court on hearing of
the suspects at the stage of granting of 'C' summary, can C
also be understood because the same principle will apply
whether the accused are being dealt with under Chapter
13 or 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under
Chapter 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the ·
case may be, the principle will not alter and more so when
we appreciate the inclusion of Section 403 of the Code D
of Criminal Procedure, it becomes quite clear that the
principle on the contrary would be reinforced."
42. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ratanlal Som13
was concerned with the legality of an order passed by Additional E
Sessions Judge without notice to the accused persons who
were arrayed as non-applicants therein. The Single Judge of
that Court referred to two decisions of this Court in Chandra
Dea Singh7 and Smt. Nagawwa 8 and couple of decisions of the
High Court and stated in paragraph 6 of the Report as under : F
"6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law it is luminously
clear that the accused-has no locus standi to appear and
participate before the process is issued. This being the
accepted position of law it can safely be concluded that
when a revision is filed challenging the order refusing to G
take cognizance the accused has no locus standi to
contest. He is not a necessary party. The determination is
to be made by the Court to find out the approach of the
Court below and to scrutinise the justifiability of the order
refusing to take cognizance. This being the position of law H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A disposal of revision by the revision aI Court without issuing
notice to the non-applicant is not infirm or pregnable. Once
it has been held that the accused persons have no role to
play before process is issued the revision at their instance
challenging the order of the revisional Court directing the
B Magistrate to reconsider the matter is not tenable as they
cannot raise grievance in regard to the same as yet there
is no direction for issuance of process."
43. A Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in
C Gurdeep Singh" was concerned with a petition under Section
482 of the Code filed by the accused seeking quashment of
the order passed by the Sessions Judge setting aside the order
of the CJM whereby the complaint was dismissed for want of
prosecution. The dismissal of complaint by the CJM for want
of prosecution was at the initial stage. The challenge to the
D order of the Sessions Judge by the accused was on the ground
that the Sessions Judge while allowing the revision application
had infringed the provisions of Section 401 (2) of the Code
inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was given to the
accused although the complaint was dismissed for want of
E prosecution. The Single Judge of that Court took the view as
follows:
"14 ........ Byro s!retch of imagination. in my opinion, the
accused can s&ak ihe setting aside of the order passed
F by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the said order
was passed by the Sessions Judge without issuing notice
to the accused. As referred to above, the accused
petitioner cannot take benefit of provisions of Section
401(2) Cr.P.C. as it could not be said that any order to the
prejudice or against the petitioner had been passed by the
G
learned Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the order. -
vide which the complaint was dismissed for want of
prosecution was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge.
If the case of the accused petitioner was not covered under
Section 401(2) Cr.P.C .. it was not at all necessary for the
H
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1047
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
learned Sessions Judge to have heard the accused A
petitioner while setting aside the order of the learned
Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 403 Cr.P.C.
Even otherwise in view of the proviso to Section 398
Cr.P.C. only the person who was discharged had a right
to be heard before the order of discharge could be set B
aside in revision by the Court of Sessions in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, in my
opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the
accused petitioner that the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge was liable to be set aside only on the c
ground that the accused petitioner was not heard, could
not be sustained."
44. In Tata Motors Limited, Single Judge of the High Court
was concerned with controversy arising out of complaint which
was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section D
203 of the Code in limine. 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 E
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 F
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. It was
also argued on behalf of the complainant that at the pre-
cognizance stage, there was no question of the accused being G
given an opportunity even in a revision petition filed by the
complainant against the order of dismissal of complaint. On the
contrary, on behalf of the accused persons it was argued that
under Section 401 (2) of the Code, if adverse order is going to
be passed in revision petition which might prejudice either the H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A accused or any other person then such a person has to be
mandatorily given an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in defence. The Single Judge of that
Court on consideration of the submissions of the parties and
the decisions cited before him culled out the legal position as
B follows:
"20. xxx xxx xxx
(1) There is a distinction to be drawn between the criminal
complaint cases which are at the pre-cognizance stage
c and those at the post-cognizance stage. There is a further
distinction to be drawn between the cases at the post-
cognizance but pre-summoning stage and those at the
post-summoning stage.
D (2) It is only at the post-summoning stage that the
respondents in a criminal complaint would answer the
description of an 'accused'. Till then they are like any other
member of the public. Therefore at the pre-summoning
stage the question of their right to be heard in a revision
petition by the complainant in their capacity as "accused"
E
in terms of Section 401 (2) CrPC does not arise.
(3) At the post-cognizance but pre-summoning stage, a
person against whom the complaint is filed might have a
right to be heard under the rubric of 'other person' under
F Section 401 (2) CrPC. If the learned MM has not taken the
cognizance of the offence then no right whatsoever accrues
to such "other person" to be heard in a revision petition.
(4) Further, it is not that in every revision petition filed by
the complainant under Section 401 (2) CrPC, a right of
G
hearing has to be given to such "other person" or the
accused against whom the criminal complaint has been
filed. The right accrues only if the order to be passed in
the revision petition is prejudicial to such person or the
accused. An order giving a specific direction to the learned
H
MANHARIBHAI MULJ!BHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1049
MOHANBHAI PATEL [RM. LODHA, J.]
MM to either proceed with the case either at the post- A
cognizance or post-summoning stage or a direction to •
register an FIR with a direction to the learned MM to
proceed thereafter might be orders prejudicial to the
respondents in a criminal complaint which would therefore
require them to be heard prior, to the passing of such B
order."
45. On facts obtaining in the case, the Single Judge
observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate had not even taken
cognizance of the offences and, therefore, there was no C
question of the applicants being heard at the stage of revision
application.
46. The above decision of the Delhi High Court in Tata
Motors Limited came up for consideration of that Court in
Prakash Devi and others v. State of Delhi and another D
[Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2626/2009 decided on
February 5, 201 O]. The Single Judge, on facts of the case which
were under consideration before him, observed that the
Magistrate had dismissed the complaint filed by the
·complainant after taking into consideration the status report E
filed by the police. The Magistrate had not examined the
complainant and other witnesses under Section 202 of the
Code and in the revision filed by the complainant the revisional
court had remanded the matter to the Magistrate to grant
another opportunity to the complainant to lead pre-summoning F
evidence and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law
and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Sessions Judge
to accord hearing to the accused persons. The High Court held
as under:
"16 ........ As already discussed above, the character of the G
petitioner was still not that of an accused as the complaint
filed by the respondent was dismissed under Section 203
Cr.P.C. and since the matter was remanded back to the
Magistrate to grant opportunity to the complainant to lead
pre-summoning evidence, therefore, the said order does H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A not cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. Even
after the said remand, the fate of the complaint case could
either be dismissal under Section 203 or under 204
Cr.P.C., ifthe Court with the fresh material before it, comes
to the conclusion to proceed against the respondent. Since
B in the present case the process was not yet issued against
the petitioner and the complaint was dismissed under S.
203 of Cr.P.C., therefore, preceding the said stage, the
petitioner had no right to seek opportunity of hearing before
the Revisional Court in the light of the legal position
c discussed above."
47. It may not be out of place to refer to an earlier decision
of the Delhi High Court in A. S. Puri v. K.L. Ahuja24. In that case,
inter alia, the question before the High Court was whether
Additional Sessions Judge had committed an error in hearing
D the arguments of the accused's counsel to whom he had not
ordered notice of the revision petition filed before him by the
complainant. The Single Judge of that Court dealt with the
question as under :
E "25 ...... This question need not detain us because the
learned Additional Sessions Judge had invited the counsel
for Mr. Puri to address arguments, when he was present
in Court at the time of the hearing of the revision petition.
It appears that notice of the revision petition did go to Mr.
F Puri but as it appears from the docket the learned
Additional Sessions Judge had only ordered notice to the
respondent, which was the State. If even by any error
committed by the Officer of the learned Magistrate, notice
had also gone to Mr. Puri nothing prevented the learned
Additional Sessions Judge from hearing Mr. Puri for it was
G
his discretion to hear him. A Full Bench of the Calcutta
High Court, consisting of eight Judges, pointed out in Hari
Dass Sanya/ v. Saritulla, (1888) ILR 15 Cal 608 (FB), that
while no notice to an accused person was necessary in
H 24. AIR 1970 Delhi 214.
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1051
MOHANBHAI PATEL [RM. LODHA, J.]
point of law before disposing of a revision petition directed A
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 notice was given.
In spite of that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had
set aside the order of dismissal. In this situation the B
complainant cannot make any further grievance of this."
48. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the
proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused/
suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the C
process should be issued against him or not As a matter of
law, upto the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot
claim any right of hearing. Section 202 contemplates
postponement of issue of process where the Magistrate is of
an opinion that further inquiry into the complaint either by himself
is required and he proceeds with the further inquiry or directs D
an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other
person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the Magistrate
finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of E
the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime
in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision
application preferred by the complainant against the order of
the dismissal of the complaint The Parliament being alive to
the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to F
be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of
process under Section 204, yet in Section 401 {2) of the Code
provided that no order in exercise of the power of the revision
shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the
case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other G
person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own defence. Three expressions,
"prejudice", "other person" and "in his own defence" in Section
401 (2) are significant for understanding their true scope, ambit
and width. Black's Law Dictionary [Eighth Edition] explains H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A "prejudice" to mean damage or detriment to one's legal rights
or claims. Concise Oxford English Dictionary [Tenth Edition,
Revised] defines "prejudice" as under :
"1. Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or
actual experience. > unjust behaviour formed on such a
B
basis. 2. harm or injury that results or may result from some
action or judgment. v.1 give rise to prejudice in (someone);
make biased. 2. cause harm to (a state of affairs)".
49. Webster Comprehensive Dictionary [International
C Edition] explains "prejudice" to mean (i) a judgment or opinion,
favourable or unfavourable, formed beforehand or without due
examination ....... ; detriment arising from a hasty and unfair
judgment; injury; harm.
D 50. P. Ramanatha Aiyar; the Law Lexicon [The
Encyclopaed(c Law Dictionary] explains "prejudice" to mean
injurious effect, injury to or impairment of a right, claim,
statement etc.
51. "Prejudice" is generally defined as meaning "to the
E harm, to the injury, to the disadvantage of someone". It also
means injury or loss.
52. The expression "other person" in the context of Section
401 (2) means a person other than accused. It includes
F suspects or the persons alleged in the complaint to have been
involved in an offence although they may not be termed as
accused at a stage before issuance of process.
53. The expression "in his own defence" comprehends,
inter alia, for the purposes of Section 401 (2), in defence of the
G order which is under challenge in revision before the Sessions
Judge or the High Court.
54. In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by
the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the
H stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1053
MOHANBHAI PATEL [RM. LODHA, J.]
Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from A
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 B
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 c
at preliminary stage - nevertheless results in termination of
proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are
alleged to have committed crime. Once a challenge is laid to
such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision
petition before the High Court or Sessions Judge, by virtue of
0
Section 401 (2) of the Code, the suspects get right of hearing
before revisional court although such order was passed without
their participation. The right given to "accused" or "the other
person" under Section 401 (2) of being heard before the
revisional court to defend an order which operates in his favour E
should not be confused with the proceedings before a
Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the
revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge
at the instance of complainant challenging the order of
dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is
reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the F
complaint. It is in this view of the matter that the accused or other
person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of express
provision contained in Section 401 (2) of the Code. The stage
is not important whether it is pre-process stage or post process
stage. G
55. In P. Sundarrajan', a two-Judge Bench of this Court
was concerned with a case where a complaint under Section
420 IPC came to be dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate.
Against the order of dismissal of the complaint, the complainant H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A preferred revision petition before the High Court. The High Court
was of the view that no notice was necessary to the suspects
for disposal of the revision and set aside the order of the
Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the
complaint afresh in accordance with law. Against the order of
B the High Court, the suspects approached this Court under
Article 136. The Court granted leave and allowed the appeal,
set aside the order of the High Court and sent the matter back
to the High Court with a direction to issue proper notice to the
persons accused of the crime in the complaint and proceed
c with the revision petition after affording them a reasonable
opportunity of hearing. This Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
Report (Pg. 472 and 473) held as under:
"5. In our opinion, this order of the High Court is ex facie
unsustainable in law by not giving an opportunity to the
D appellant herein to defend his case that the learned Judge
violated all principles of natural justice as also the
requirement of law of hearing a party before passing an
adverse order.
E 6. We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing this appeal,
setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the
matter to the High Court to issue proper notice to the
appellant herein who is the respondent in the criminal
revision petition before it and afford him a reasonable
F opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders. The
appeal is allowed."
56. In Raghu Raj Singh Rousha 2 , a two-Judge Bench of
this Court was faced with a question whether, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court in exercise of its
G jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code was
justified in passing an order in the absence of the accused
persons. That was a case where a complaint was filed under
Section 200 of the Code in respect of offences punishable
under Sections 323, 382, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 and
H 34 of IPC. Along with the complaint, an application under
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1055
MOHANBHAI PATEL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Section 156(3) was also made. The Metropolitan Magistrate A
passed an order refusing to direct investigation under Section
156(3) and the complainant was asked to lead pre-summoning
evidence. The complainant aggrieved by the order of the
Metropolitan Magistrate filed a revision petition before the High
Court. The High Court with the consent of the APP appearing B
for the State set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate
with a direction to him to examine the matter afresh after calling
for a report from the police authorities. It is from this order that
the matter reached this Court at the instance of the suspect/
accused. The Court observed that if the Metropolitan c
Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence and issuance
of summons upon the accused persons had been merely
postponed, in a criminal revision filed on behalf of complainant,
the accused was entitled to be heard before the High Court.
Sections 397, 399 and 401 were noticed by this Court and so
0
also few earlier decisions including Chandra Deo Singh',
Vadilal Pancha/14 , P. Sundarrajan 1 and then in paragraphs 22
and 23 (Pg. 369) of the Report, the Court held as under :
"22. Here, however, the learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance. He had applied his mind. He refused to E
exercise his jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code.
He arrived at a conclusion that the dispute is a private
dispute in relation to an immovable property and, thus,
police investigation is not necessary. It was only with that
intent in view, he directed examination of the complainant F
and his witnesses so as to initiate and complete the
procedure laid down under Chapter XV of the Code.
23. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. G
The High Court shall implead the appellant as a party in
the criminal revision application, hear the matter afresh and
pass an appropriate order."
57. In a comparatively recent order in A. N. Santhanam3 ,
a two-Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with a H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
/\ question, whether the High Court committed an error in
disposing of the criminal revision petition filed by the
complainant without any notice to the accused. On behalf of the
accused/suspect, it was argued that the High Court committed
the error in disposing of the criminal revision without any notice
s to him. On the other hand, on behalf of the complainant it was
argued that no notice as such was required to be issued to the
accused as it was at the stage of taking cognizance. The Court
considered Section 401, particularly, sub-section (2) thereof and
held as under :
c "A plain reading of Clause (2) of the said provision makes
it abundantly clear that the High Court in exercise of its
revisional power cannot pass any order which may cause
prejudice to the accused or other persons unless he has
an opportunity of being heard either personally or by
D pleader in his own defence.
In the instant case it cannot be said that the rights of the
appellant have not been affected by the order of revision.
The complaint filed by the respondent which was rejected
E for whatsoever reasons has been resurrected with a
direction to the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint.
Undoubtedly, whether the appellant herein was an accused
or not but his right has been affected and the impugned
order has resulted in causing prejudice to him.
F In the circumstances, we are of the view that the decision
cited by the learned counsel for the respondent has no
application whatsoever to the facts situation. In fact the
decision of this Court was in a case where the complaint
was taken cognizance and not a case where the compliant
G was rejected. In the circumstances, we hold that the High
Court committed an error in allowing the revision filed by
the respondent herein without any notice to the appellant.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set
H aside and the Criminal Revision Case No. 1045 of 2003
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA v. SHAILESHBHAI 1057
MOHANBHAI PATEL [RM. LODHA, J.]
shall stand restored to its file for hearing and disposal on A
merits after notice to the appellant herein."
58. We are in complete agreement with the view
expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan', Raghu Raj Singh
Rousha 2 and A. N. Santhanam 3 • We hold, as it must be, that
in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High B
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 C
crime is entitted 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 D
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 E
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 F
Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question
accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary
are overruled.
59. In view of the above position, the impugned order dated
5.8.2005 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and, G
is set aside. The appellants' application for impleadment in the
criminal revision petition stands allowed. High Court shall now
hear the matter and dispose of the criminal revision petition in
accordance with law. The appeal is allowed as above.
RP. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Criminal Procedure"Sign in to search