Gujarat High Court
Kumari Meena Basantkumar vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5682/2014 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 5682 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3725 of 2014
==========================================================
KUMARI MEENA BASANTKUMAR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Applicant(s) No. 2
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. JM PRAJAPATI(6772) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/07/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Both the applications arise from the one and the same order
and therefore, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for
both the parties the matters are decided by a common order.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati along
with learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha for the petitioner.
3. On perusal of the record it is noticed that the respondent No.
2 filed the private complaint before the 8 th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was registered as a
criminal inquiry on 23.5..2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class passed order under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and directed the police to investigate the offence and to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5682/2014 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
place the report within 30 days.
4. Thereafter another order was passed on 21.2.2013 to dismiss
the complaint. The learned Trial Court while dismissing the
complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code had
taken into consideration the report tendered by the Investigating
officer that there is no material available to believe that the forged
document was executed to siphon and grab ancestral land. The
complainant having being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Trial Court dropping the criminal proceedings
approached the learned Sessions Court by filing Criminal
Revision Application No. 54 of 2013. The learned Sessions Court
passed the order on 10.9.2013 and directed to set aside the order of
the Judicial Magistrate First Class and directed to register the FIR
under Section 154 and to investigate the offence under Section
156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Stark and confiscated, the
Revisional Court passed such order in absence of the petitioner
who are proposed accused.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner mainly
referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Manharlal Muljilal Kakadiya Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel
vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanlal Patel and Ors. (2012) SCC 517 and
submit to ` that since the petitioner were proposed accused have
not been joined in the proceeding before the learned Sessions
Court. The order passed by the Revisional Court is in teeth of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5682/2014 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Section 401(2) of the CRPC., and is required to be quashed and set
aside.
6. Learned APP would point out any different position of law
in the case of Manharlal Muljilal Kakadiya Vs. Shaileshbhai
Mohanbhai Patel (supra ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after
referring and surveying the previous judgment settled the law as
under :
"53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this
Court in P. Sundarrajan1 , Raghu Raj Singh Rousha2 and A. N.
Santhanam3 . We hold, as it must be, that 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 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. 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 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 Magistrate for issuance of
process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High
Courts to the contrary are overruled."
7. The law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely covers
the issue raised in this matter. The Revisional Court is expected to
hear the proposed accused as is expressly provided in Section
401(2) of the CRPC before passing any questioned order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5682/2014 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
8. In view of above, the present petitions are allowed. The
judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.
54 of 2013 and consequently the registration of the FIR is hereby
quashed and set aside.
9. Criminal Revision Application No. 54 of 2013 is restored to
its original proceedings and the present petitioner and the
proposed accused are ordered to be joined as private respondent
in Criminal Revision Application and the Revision shall be heard
afresh by the learned Sessions Court.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
