The accused has a right to be heard in a revision application challenging the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 9.7.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2015.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Yash Joshi for the petitioner. Though process was served to Respondent No. 2, he did not remain present. I have also heard Learned APP.

4. What could be noticed that the Respond No. 2 has filed Criminal Inquiry No. 1 of 2015 before the Learned JMFC, Gandhinagar for seeking issuance of the process under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC against the petitioner. The inquiry was decided by the learned JMFC on 16 February 2015 by declining to issue process under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and accordingly it was dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Against the said order, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2015 before the Learned Sessions Court, Gandhinagar. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and ordered to issue summons / process against the petitioner accused. This said order is under challenge before this court.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi raised solitary contention that Learned Sessions Judge cannot issue summons / process without hearing the suspect / petitioner.

6. He referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manoharibhai, Muljibhai Kakadia and another versus Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others reported in 2012(10) SCC 517 . What could be noticed that before the Learned Sessions Court, maintainability of the revision was a question and in that regard, the Learned Sessions Court has framed issue No.1 which reads as under:-

“[1] Whether this Revision Application is not maintainable as the accused in complaint before the Trial Court is necessary party ?

7. The Learned Sessions Court while answering the issue No.1 in negative held following reasons which reads as under:

“5. Learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Madras High Court in case of M.C. Ganesan vs. S.N. Rao , reported in (1987)3 Crimes (HC) 709 , wherein, it is held that till the process is issued by the Trial Court, the person do not get the status of the accused and consequently he has no right of audience before the Revisional Authority. The provision to section 398 of Cr.P.C ., merely states that no court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged, unless such person had an opportunity of showing cause but that contingency does not arise in this case, as this is not a case of discharge by the trial court and fact that in the reported case, the complaint was about defamation. Considering the above ratio, wherein also the original accused is not made party, the same would squarely applicable to the case.

6. It would be fruitful to refer recent judgment of the Honourable Hyderabad High Court reported in 2014 Cr.L.J. 4145 , in case of R. Mahalxmi vs. Nirmala Reddy , wherein it is held that "In other words, till the process is issued by the trial court, the petitioners do not get the status of the accused. Consequently, they have no right of audience before the revisional authority. The proviso to section 398 Crl. P.C. merely states that no court shall make any direction under this section for enquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause. But, that contingency does not arise in this case, as this is not a case of discharge by the trial court.

"The concept of natural justice has got its own natural limitations. It cannot be too vague and stretched to an extent of breaking of systems of recognised law. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. It is for the Legislature at any time to change the mode of pro