The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused applicants are entitled to be heard in a criminal revision petition as per the requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code.

JUDGMENT

N.S. Dhanik, J. - By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants seek to set-aside the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2020, "Smt. Santoshi Rana v. Sumit Rana & others".

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 moved a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag against the applicants alleging therein that the applicants harassed the complainant for dowry and committed cruelty. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint of the respondent no. 2 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent no. 2 preferred a criminal revision before the District & Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag and the learned revisional court proceeded ex-parte against the applicants; the revisional court allowed the revision by setting aside the order dated 03.11.2020 and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for passing order afresh. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the accused applicants.

3. This Court in Mukesh Kumar vs. Central Bureau Investigation has held, on the basis of plethora of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & others vs. State of U.P. & another, (2013) AIR SC 52, Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & another, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368; State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Pandhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568; Onkar Nath Mishra & others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, (2008) 2 SCC 561; Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala & another, (2009) 14 SCC 466 and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) vs. State of West Bengal & another, (2009) 6 SCC 364 that while framing charge, the trial court is required to examine whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the trial court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed or not and a ground for convicting the accused has been made out or not. At this stage, the trial court is required to see that even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. This is the law on framing of charge/discharge of the accused.

4. But in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that when criminal revision was filed on behalf of accused person, complainant was not heard. Paragraph 58 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia s and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & another,2013 1 NCC 168, is useful and is therefore, being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:

"58. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Sundarrajan (supra), Raghu Raj Singh Rousha (supra) and A.N. Santhanam (supra). We hold, as it may be, that in a revision petition preferred by 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 crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legali