ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party-State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This quashing application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Dhanbad in Cr. Rev. No. 105 of 2010, whereby, the revision petition filed by opposite party no.2 has been allowed and the order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. No.2299 of 2009 has been set aside.

3. A complaint case being C.P. Case No. 2299 of 2009 was filed against the petitioners under Sections 448, 341, 323, 504 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and cognizance was taken under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and no cognizance was taken under Sections 3/4 of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Aggrieved with this, the complainant has filed Cr. Rev. No. 105 of 2010, which was allowed without hearing the petitioner and direction was issued to take cognizance against the petitioner under the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the revisional order has been passed, which is against the mandate of law. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517.

5. Paragraphs 46 and 53 of the said judgment are quoted herein below :

“46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. As a matter of law, up to the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing. Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process where the Magistrate is of an opinion that further inquiry into the complaint either by himself is required and he proceeds with the further inquiry or directs an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint. Parliament being alive to the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of process under Section 204, yet in Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in exercise of the power of the revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

xxx xxx xxx

53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Cou