The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused has a right to be heard in a revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, even if no process has been issued, as per Section 401(2) of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

Heard.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order date 02.07.2014, passed by the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Revision No. 510/2013, in which the revision petition was allowed and the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, C.G. dated 07.11.2013 about the dismissal of complaint filed by respondent No. 2, was set aside.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur against the petitioners praying for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court completed the inquiry on the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. pursuant to which the order, dated 07.11.2013 was passed. The trial Court refused to entertain the complaint and to take cognizance of offences on this ground-that the Court at Raipur does not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is available with Bilaspur Court.

3. The Criminal Revision No. 510 of 2013 was preferred before the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. and the same has been decided by the impugned order by which the order of the A.C.J.M., Raipur,. dated 07.11.2013 was set aside and the trial Court was directed to consider whether the cognizance can be taken or not in the complaint case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants were respondents in the revision petition No. 510 of 2013 before the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. but before passing the impugned order, no notices were issued to them, therefore, they were not provided with the opportunity of hearing which is against the principle of natural justice. Making a reference to the Section 401 (2) of Cr.P.C., that "no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence."

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517: (2013 Cri. L.J. 144) and Bal Manohar Jalan v. Sunil Paswan and Anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 640: (2014 Cri. L.J. 3881) in which it has been held that giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent in Criminal Revision is necessary and mandatory.

5. It is submitted that this principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Satish Atmaram Talekar and Ors. reported in Criminal Appeal No. 2183 of 2011 decided on 18.06.2020, in Cri.M.P. No. 1583 of 2017 of this Court between the parties Rajendra Chawla and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Chabda and Anr. and in Cri. M.P. No. 1663 of 2017 between the parties Rajendra Chawla and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Chabda and Anr. decided on 28.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the revision petition and submits that the learned Revisional Court has observed in the impugned order, that the objection as to jurisdiction of a complaint case can be taken only after taking cognizance in the complaint case, therefore, the order passed by the learned Revisional Court is proper, which needs no interference.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 02 adopts the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel and submits that the order of the A.C.J.M., Raipur returning the complaint case for presentation in the proper Court does not fall within the scope of Section 201 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the accused in complaint case has no right to be heard before the stage of issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. As in the present case, the trial Court refused to take cognizance and therefore, there was no issuance of summons, hence, the applicant did not have any right to be heard in the revision petition. It is very