Proposed accused must be heard in revision against Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application; no prejudicial order without opportunity under Section 401(2), applicable to Sessions Judge via Section 399.

JUDGMENT :

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.

1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought twofold reliefs. Firstly, to quash and set aside the order dated 20.08.2025 (impugned order) passed by the learned Sessions Judge and, secondly, to quash and set aside FIR No.125/2025 dated 30.08.2025 registered against the Petitioners under Sections 442, 427, 504, 379 r/w 34 of IPC at the instance of Ponda Police Station.

2. The Petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen presently 66 years old and Petitioner No.2, the daughter of Petitioner No.1, is a doctor by profession. The Respondent No.2 is State of Goa and Respondent No.3 is the Complainant at whose instance the impugned order is passed and consequently the FIR is registered.

3. The chronology of events necessary to determine the issue arising out of the present Petition is summarised as under:

(i) Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned JMFC, A Court, Ponda, seeking a direction to the concerned Police Station to register an FIR against the Petitioners herein. Learned JMFC vide its order dated 15.03.2024, was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

(ii) Aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2024, Respondent No.3 preferred Criminal Revision Application bearing No.66/2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Merces, sitting at Ponda. Vide order dated 20.08.2025 (impugned order), learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the Revision Application, set aside the order of the learned JMFC and direct the concerned Police Station to register an FIR against the Petitioners.

(iii) In consequence to the aforesaid directions, the concerned Police Station registered an FIR dated 30.08.2025 against the Petitioners under Sections 442, 427, 504, 379 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. Heard Ms Anushka Kuvelkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr Nikhil Vaze, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State and Mr Kabir Sabnis, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3.

5. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

6. Although, various grounds are set out in the Petition on merits, the Petitioners have restricted themselves to a short question of law. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioners that they were not heard by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding Criminal Revision Application No.66/2024 in a clear infraction of the requirement of law and the observations o the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On this ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

7. The question that arises for my consideration is, whether, in law, the accused/proposed accused is required to be heard before the Revisional Court in a revision at the instance of the Complainant whose application under Section 156(3) of CrPC is rejected by the Magistrate.

8. At the outset, before adverting to the facts, it would be apposite to set out the framework of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with Revision. Sections 397, 399 and 401 of CrPC read as follows:

"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.—

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdictio