The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside an order wherein the order in a revision petition was passed by the Sessions Judge without issuing process to the accused and held that persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such a revision petition and the impugned order in the present case has been passed without hearing the petitioner and is thus liable to be set aside.
Brief Facts:
A Criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner for chaeting under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. However, it was dismissed by the Trial Court for non-appearance of the complainant. The complainant filed a revision petition against the dismissal order and the Session judge without issuing process to the accused set aside the order date and restored the complaint to its original number and remanded the case back to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. The present petition was then filed seeking quashing of this order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order was liable to be set aside in view of the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. and further placed reliance on the judgment in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another versus Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the complaint case was dismissed in default at the pre-summoning stage, there was no need to issue a process to the prospective accused, and therefore, the impugned order had rightly been passed and the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to Section 401 CrPC and stated that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity to be heard either personally or by the pleader in his own defence.
The court further referred to the judgment in Muljibhai Kakadia and another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel wherein it was held that as it must be, in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where a complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition.
The court stated that the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such a revision petition and the impugned order in the present case has been passed without hearing the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Harinder Singh vs Rajinder Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No.: CRR-800-2022 (O & M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. B.P.S Virk
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
