Bombay High Court
Narsimha S/O. Rangaiyya Manne And ... vs Sayyad Haji Ali Karim Ali And ... on 29 November, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
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
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
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.
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
