IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal of complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. is not a rejection of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Navin Sinha, J.

The petitioner, an accused in the complaint case, is aggrieved by the refusal of the High court to interfere with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the order of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.")

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.l filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate called for a report from the police. The police, after investigation submitted report that the allegations were false. Notice was issued to the complainant, who then filed a protest petition seeking an order of cognizance and issuance of process. The Magistrate, after hearing the respondent and not being satisfied dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant preferred a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge in which the appellant was impleaded as a party respondent. No notice was issued to the appellant. The revision application was allowed and the matter remanded to the Magistrate. Relying upon Sections 399 and 401(2) Cr.P.C, it was submitted that no order to the prejudice of the appellant could have been passed without hearing him after dismissal of the complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge erred in passing the remand order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction placing reliance on Section 398 Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation by the Magistrate. The High Court further erred in holding that no opportunity of hearing was required under Section 398 Cr.P.C. if the direction for further inquiry was being passed after dismissal of the complaint as opposed to a discharge. Effectively, the complaint case was therefore restored to the prejudice of the appellant. Reliance was placed on Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, 2012 (10) SCC 517.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.l submitted that the dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at the precognizance stage, does not vest any right in the accused to be heard at the stage of remand in revision for further inquiry. Merely because the Magistrate may have called for a police report, it does not tantamount to taking cognizance. There has been no dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., entitling the appellant to be heard in the revisional jurisdiction.

4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The complaint filed by respondent no.1 before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleged that by cheating and forging his signatures on blank papers, he had been shown as the sole proprietor of M/s Shivam Wines, when in fact he was a partner and his resignation from the partnership had also been forged. Consequentially, in the recovery suit filed by the Bank leading to the grant of recovery certificate, his private property came to be auctioned.

5. The Magistrate, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed the police to register a criminal case, investigate and submit police report in 90 days. The police after investigation submitted a report dated 05.04.2006 under Section 173(2) that the accusations were false. The Magistrate did not consider it necessary to proceed under Section 173(8) and issued notice to the complainant as to why the final report by the police be not accepted. The respondent filed a protest petition which was registered as a complaint case.

The Magistrate, after hearing the respondent, and not being satisfied, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 13.07.2006. It was therefore not a rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as was sought to be urged on behalf of the respondent. The Additional Sessions Judge, in a revision preferred by the respondent against the dismissal of his complaint, set aside the dismissal order on 08.10.2007, effecti