JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks the following prayers:

"In the circumstances as enumerated above, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:-

1) Quash the order dated 07/04/2014 passed by the Ld sessions judge Saket setting aside the order of dismissal of compliant passed by Ld. magistrate dated 25/01/2014.

2) Quash the order dated 18/04/2013 passed by the Ld sessions judge Saket setting aside the order of dismissal of compliant passed by Ld. magistrate dated 05/12/2012.

3) Set aside / quash the order of the Ld. Magistrate dated 26/04/2014 directing service by publication in the newspaper.

4) Any other order which the court deems fit in the circumstances and in the interests of justice."

Background

2. The facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the present petition, are as under:

i. On 16.04.2022, respondent no. 2/FIITJEE Ltd. filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499/500/501/502 of the Indian Penal Coe, 1860 ('IPC') against 16 accused persons including petitioner no.1, M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (accused no. 1), petitioner no. 2/Sh. Bajaj Arora (accused no. 9) and petitioner no. 2/Sh. Atuj Chandra (accused no. 11).

ii. Vide order dated 26.06.2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned accused persons no. 1 to 15 (including the petitioners) for offences under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 of the IPC.

iii. Vide order dated 05.12.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint qua 08 accused persons (accused nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15) for non-prosecution.

iv. Respondent no. 2/FIITJEE Ltd. challenged the aforesaid dismissal by way of a revision petition, which was disposed of by the learned ASJ, vide order dated 18.04.2013 with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- and remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court giving one opportunity to respondent no. 2 to serve accused no. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

v. On 25.01.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint qua accused nos. 7, 8, 13 and 14 in view of the non-filing of process fee and fresh/correct address of the said accused persons.

vi. The aforesaid dismissal was once again challenged by respondent no. 2 by way of a revision petition. Vide order dated 07.04.2014, the learned ASJ set aside the order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and directed respondent no. 2 to file necessary process fee for issuance of summons to accused nos. 7, 8, 13 and 14.

vii. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.04.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed service of summons through publication in a newspaper - 'the Statesman', with respect to accused nos. 7, 8, 13 and 14.

Submissions of behalf of the Petitioners

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the present petitioners were arrayed as accused nos. 1, 9 and 11 in the subject complaint and therefore, they were necessary parties in the revision petition filed by respondent no. 2 against the orders dismissing the complaint qua some of the accused persons as mentioned hereinabove, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was submitted that the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had accrued a right in favour of the present petitioners, which was denied by respondent no. 2, by not making them a party to the said revision petitions. It was submitted that in doing so, Section 401(2) of the CrPC was not followed, which provides as under:

"401. High Court's powers of revision.-

*** *** ***

(2 ) No order under this section 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."

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the words 'accused' or 'other person' used in the aforesaid provision would include the present petitioners. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on Manhari