An accused has no locus standi to appear and participate before the process is issued. This being the accepted position of law it can safely be concluded that when a revision is filed challenging the order refusing to take congnizance the accused has no locus standi to contest. He is not a necessary party.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Legality of the order dated 16-1-1997, passed by the learned IV additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Cr. R. No. 50/96 reversing the order dated 1-2-1996, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur in an unregistered complaint case is called in question by the present revisionist.

2. The essential facts giving rise to the present revision are that the non-applicant as complainant filed a criminal complaint for offences Under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC) against the present petitioner and 2 others alleging that a Banker's cheque duly crossed was issued by the competent authority of the Education, District Chhatarpur in the name of the Head Master, Primary School, Dhadari amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for construction of School building. The aforesaid cheque was sent to the Head Master of the Govt. Middle School, Dhadari who was to hand over the said cheque to the Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Dhadari, but, instead of doing so he deposited the cheque in the account of the Head Master of Govt. Middle School, Dhadari in the State Bank of India, Chhatarpur. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the Head Master, Govt. Middle School was assisted by the other accused persons who are the bank officials. The matter was reported by the Head Master of the Primary School to the Higher Authorities of the Department of Education and the authorities of the State Bank of India. On receipt of such report the competent authority of Education Department, Chhatarpur communicated with the State Bank of India by letter dated 14.4.1991. As a consequence of which the Head Master of Middle School prepared a Banker's cheque and gave it to the complainant. It was further alleged that accused No. 1 had colluded with other accused persons and after interpolating the cheque, had deposited the same in his name with a view to misappropriate the Government's money. The complainant examined himself Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The learned Magistrate observing that there were no materials to make out a prima facie case against the accused persons, by his order dt. 1-2-1996 rejected the complaint.

3. The order rejecting the complaint was challenged by the complainant in a criminal revision which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the trial Court to inquire into the matter afresh. Certain facts were highlighted by the revisional Court while passing this direction.

4. Challenging the impugned order Mr. Y. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revisional Court has erred in law by setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate without issuing notice to the accused non-applicants, therein. It is his further submission that order directing for fresh inquiry was not warranted in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as the learned Magistrate had passed the order refusing to register the complaint on analysis of the materials on record in proper perspective.

Combating the aforesaid submissions, Ku. Tripti Kholiya learned counsel for the non-applicant complainant, has canvassed that the accused persons were not entitled to notice from the Revisional Court inasmuch as issue in controversy was whether the learned Magistrate was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in refusing to register the complaint case. Her submission, in essence, is that the accused persons are not necessary parties to the revision of this nature as the accused persons have no locus standi to participate before the process is issued. Her further contention is that as the Revisional Court has scrutinised the factual matrix and had directed for fresh consideration by the learned Magistrate, the order does not call for any interference by this Court