RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS.versusRAKESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

                          [2009] 6 S.C.R. 490

.A                    RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS.
                                  v.
                  RAKESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR.
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2009)
                            APRIL 17, 2009
 B
      [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 3971401 -
   Revision - Maintainability of - complaint uls. 156(3) -
 C Magistrate directing registration of FIR - Revision by accused
   before Sessions Judge - Operation of the impugned order
   stayed - Revision by complainant before High Court - High
   Court passing the order, without issuing notice to the accused,
   holding that accused of a cognizable offence cannot file
 D revision before registration of FIR as the order uls. 156(3) is
   an administrative order - On appeal, plea that matter since
   closed by court conclusively, accused was required to be
   heard on the question of maintainability of the revision - Mater
   remitted to High Court.
 E
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
     No. 760 of 2009.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 15.122007 of the High
     Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Crl. Revision No. 435/2007.
 F
        KTS Tulsi, Bharat Sangal, Mrinalini Oinam and Varnika
     Tamar for the Appellants.

         Arup Banerjee, R. Shekhar, R.K. Dey, R.K. Srivastava, for
     the Respondents.
G
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

H                                 490
             RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS. v. RAKESH KUMAR                     491
               YADAV & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
              2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a        A
         learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who allowed
         the application filed in terms of Section 397 read with Section
         401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
         ·code') assailing the order passed by learned Sessions
         Judge, Jaunpur. The primary stand taken in this appeal is that      B
         the revision petition was allowed and disposed of even without
         issuance of notice to the present appellants .
..
              3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

              The appellants filed for revision before the learned           c
         Sessions Judge, Jaunpur questioning correctness of the order
         passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Single
         Judge held that no person who is accused of a cognizable
         offence can file for revision before registration of FIR against
         him since the order under Section 156(3) of Code is an              D
         administrative order at a pre cognizance stage under Chapter
         XII of Code.

               4. It is submitted that the revision petition had been fiWd
         by the present respondents. If the High Court was of the view
                                                                             E
         that the order of learned Sessions Judge was indefensible it
         ought to have granted an opportunity to the present appellants
         to have their say in the matter. The learned Single Judge
         closed the issues conclusively by holding that the revision
         petition was not maintainable. If that was the view the learned
         Single Judge ought to have given a notice to the present            F
         appellants to show that the revision was maintainable. By
         disposing of the application without issuance of notice to the
         present appellants, they are prejudiced and the impugned order
         cannot be sustained in law.
                                                                             G
     J        5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
         submitted that at the cognizance stage no notice need be given
         to the accused. Since the order was passed in favour of the
         present appellants, same ought not to have been set aside
                                                                             H
   492      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A without issuance of notice to them.

       6. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order
  and remit the matter to the High Court. Let the parties appear
  without further notice on 22.4.2009. We make it clear that we
  have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Until the
8
  disposal of the matter by the High Court the proceedings before
  the trial Court shall remain stayed.

         7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

   K.K.T.                                   Appeal disposed of.