Accused persons should be heard at the pre-cognizance stage when deciding a criminal revision application challenging the order passed by the lower court.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both the sides, at admission stage.

2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed in criminal revision application no.3 of 2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, thereby allowed the criminal revision application filed by the applicant Vishal Prakash Pawar.

3. Heard Mr. Bhosle, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Wattamwar, learned APP for State/respondent no.1 and Miss. Sonvane, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

4. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for petitioners invited my attention to the impugned judgment and order passed in the criminal revision application no.3 of 2022. He pointed out that present petitioners were not added as respondents. Revision application came to be decided in their absence. It has caused serious prejudice to their rights and interests. Mr. Bhosle, has placed his reliance on following citations in support of his submissions :-

i. Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar and others reported in 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 3069 (SC).

ii. Priyanka Shrivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287.

5. By taking help of aforesaid citations, Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr. Wattamwar, learned APP for the State/respondent no.1 has been fair enough to admit the legal position in view of sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. as well as the recent decision of the Supreme Court referred above.

7. Miss Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the impugned order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge. She submitted that the petitioners had no right to be heard at pre-cognizance stage. The order is valid in the eye of law. It does not require any interference. She has placed her reliance on following citations :-

i. Dhananjay Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh and ors. reported in AIR 2020 Chattisgarh 36.

ii. Union of India and another Vs. W N Chadha reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1082.

iii. Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 65.

8. She submitted that accused persons have no right to be heard at the stage of pre-cognizance. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. There is no merit in the petition.

9. It is an admitted position that the present petitioners were not made party respondents before revisional Court. As such criminal revision application came to be decided in their absence, resulting in allowing the criminal revision application. The point involved is whether it is necessary to hear the accused while deciding the criminal revision application where in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class for investigation u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. is challenged.

"10. The legal position is made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Priyanka Shrivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra). Paragraph nos.5 and 6 are directly on the point involved in the petition. Paragraph no.5 and 6 are reproduced as under :-

"5. Be it noted, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the counsel for the respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for the State but no notice was issued to the accused persons therein. Ordinarily, we would not have adverted to the same because that lis is the subject matter in the appeal, but it has become imperative to do only to highlight how these kind of litigations are being dealt with and also to show the respondents had the unwarranted enthusiasm to move the courts. The order passed against the said accused persons at that time was an adverse order inasmuch as the matter was remitted. It was incumbent to hear the respondents though they had not become accused persons.

6. A three-Judge Bench in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others has opined that in a case