1 Jud.Revn 63.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Revision No. 63/2017
APPELLANTS:- 1. Narsimha S/o Rangaiyya Manne,
Aged about 38 yrs, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Korpana, Tah.
Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Sau. Madhuri w/o Narsimha
Manne, aged about 29 yrs, Occ.
Housewife, R/o. Korpana, Tah.
Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
3. Nagesh S/o Subbarao Pulgalla,
aged about 27 yrs, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Sonuli, Tah.
Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
4. Suresh S/o Subbarao Pulgalla,
aged about 33 yrs, Occ. Business,
(Grocery Shop). R/o. Wansali, Tah.
Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
5. Aiyyaj Ali Akhtar Ali,
aged about 45 yrs, Occ.
Agricultuirst, R/o. Korpana, Tah.
Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
6. Prashant S/o Prakash Zade,
aged about 32 yrs, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o. Chandrapur,
Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur.
VERSUS
Non-applicant:- 1. Sayyad Haji Ali Karim Ali,
aged about 67 yrs, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Binda Gate, Teacher's Colony,
Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur.
3. State of Maharashtra through its
Police Station Officer, Korpana,
Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:17:26 :::
2 Jud.Revn 63.17.odt
Shri N. B. Bargat, Advocate for applicants.
Shri J. K. Matale, Advocate for non-applicant No.1
Shri. J. Y. Ghurde, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.3.
___________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. Chandurkar, J.
DATE : 29.11.2017. Oral Judgment :
By this application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (herein after referred to as "Code") the order dated 7th April, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on the revision application filed by the Non-applicant No.1 herein is under challenge. By said order, the Police Station Officer has been directed to investigate the complaint.
2. The facts in brief are that the Non-applicant No.1 is the original complainant who had filed a complaint under Section 190 of the Code. In those proceedings, the learned Magistrate on 25.09.2013 rejected the application filed by the complainant seeking directions to investigate the matter and issue process against the accused persons. This order dated 25.09.2013 was challenged by the complainant by filing a revision application. The said revision application came to be allowed by the Sessions Court ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:17:26 ::: 3 Jud.Revn 63.17.odt and the Police Officer was directed to investigate into the complaint. Being aggrieved, the prospective accused persons have filed the present criminal application.
3. Shri N. B. Bargat, learned counsel for the applicants by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & ors. Reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 4105 (S.C) as well as judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagannath Verma & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & anr. Reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) Journal 129 submitted that the present applicants were entitled to be heard by the Sessions Court while entertaining the revision application filed by the original complainant. According to him, it has been clearly held in the aforesaid decisions that in such a situation, a right of hearing is required to be given to the prospective accused persons. The same not having been done by the Sessions Court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Shri J. Y. Ghurde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri J. K. Matale, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order. According to them, since the cognizance of offence was not taken, the prospective accused ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:17:26 ::: 4 Jud.Revn 63.17.odt persons were not liable to be heard. By the impugned order, the only direction issued to the Police Authorities was to investigate into the matter. No prejudice was caused to the applicants by that order. It was submitted that the application deserved to be dismissed.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the impugned judgment. The question that arises for consideration in the present application is answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (Supra). It has been held in clear terms that any revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or the person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to be heard by the revisional Court. This view has been followed by the Allahabad High Court.
6. In the present case, the prospective accused persons were not impleaded as parties before the Sessions Court. In their absence, the application came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate.
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:17:26 :::
5 Jud.Revn 63.17.odt
7. Considering the aforesaid law, the order impugned is unsustainable. Same is therefore liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
(i) The judgment dated 07.04.2014 in Revision No. 122 of 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The proceedings are remanded to the Sessions Court. The complainant shall implead the prospective accused persons as non-applicants. Thereafter, the Sessions Court shall decide the revision application afresh and in accordance with law.
(iii) The Criminal Revision Application is allowed in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Gohane ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:17:26 :::