The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'other person' in Section 401(2) of the Code includes a complainant/first informant if the order passed by the revisional court has the potential to cause prejudice to the complainant. The judgment also emphasizes the rights of the victim to participate in the proceedings initiated at his instance.

ORDER :

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 12th September, 2022, in Criminal Revision Application No.171 of 2022, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to allow the revision application and set aside the order dated 5th February, 2022 passed by the learned Magistrate on an application for discharge preferred by respondent No.2 – original accused No.2 in Regular Criminal Case No.2930 of 2020 and thereby discharge respondent No.2 of the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 506, 500 and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

2. The background facts necessary for the determination by this application can be stated, in brief, as under:

(a) The applicant - first informant, is the brother of respondent No.2 – accused No.2. Accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. The applicant lodged a report with the allegations that the applicant - first informant and accused No.1 were dealing in the business of construction and development of properties, in a partnership, till the year 2010. The first informant started his independent business. Thereupon, disputes arose between the first informant and accused Nos.1 and 2.

(b) The first informant alleged in the month of August, 2018, he had visited the house of the accused. At that time both the accused had abused, insulted and threatened the first informant. In the month of September, 2018, during Ganesh festival, the first informant again visited the house of accused. Accused No.2 abused and insulted the first informant. Accused No.1 also abused and insulted the first informant and threatened to eliminate the first informant and his family members by employing hirelings and also threatened to implicate the first informant in false cases. Thereupon the first informant lodged report leading to registration of CR No.1158 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 506(2), 506, 500 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Post completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be lodged.

(c) Accused No.2 preferred an application for discharge. By an order dated 5th February, 2022, the learned JMFC rejected the application opining that there were prima facie sufficient grounds to proceed against accused No.2.

3. Being aggrieved, accused No.2 preferred Revision Application No.171 of 2022 before the Court of Session at Pune. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to allow the revision holding inter alia that there was prima facie no sufficient material to frame charge against accused No.2. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge interfered with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and discharged accused No.2 of the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 506, 504 and 500 of the Penal Code.

4. Being aggrieved, the first informant has preferred this application. The principal contention of the first informant is that the impugned order suffers from grave procedural irregularity as the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and discharged accused No.2 without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the first informant. Accused No.2 ought to have impleaded the first informant as a party respondent to the revision application. In any event, it was incumbent upon the Court of Session to issue notice to the first informant as, being a victim, the first informant had a right to be heard in a matter where the accused sought discharge. The applicant asserts in view of the provisions contained in Section 401(2) of the Code, 1973, the first informant deserved an opportunity of being heard. And, consequently, the revisional court could not have passed the impugned order to the prejudice of the first informant.

5. An endeavour was also made to assail the legality and correctness o