Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Gyan Singh v. State of M.P. and another
Criminal Revision No.1215 of 2015 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 6.11.2015, passed by II ASJ, Sironj, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.84 of 2015; Decided on 28.2.2017.
S.K. Shrivastava for applicant;
Girdhari Singh Chauhan for respondent No.1/State;
Sushil Goswami for respondent No.2
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.294, 323/34, 326 and 506 Part II -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.200 and 202 -- private complaint registered under against respondent No.2 -- challenged in revision -- allowed without making applicant party as respondent and without affording any opportunity of hearing -- respondent discharged -- it was obligatory on part of respondent No.2 to arraign applicant as respondent in criminal revision - revisional Court should have heard applicant before deciding criminal revision -- impugned order set aside -- matter remanded back to decide matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to applicant -- revision allowed.
Held : Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No.2 to arraign the applicant as a respondent in the criminal revision and the revisional Court should have heard the applicant before the deciding the criminal revision. (1985)2 SCC 537, (2006)4 SCC 359 and (2008)8 SCC 434 followed. 2010(1) NCC 55 and 2006(3) Crimes 155 relied on.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.401(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) -- scope of powers -- Sessions Court may exercise all or any of powers -- which may be exercised by High Court under -- no order prejudicial to interest of any other person shall be passed unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or through his counsel. [Paras 10 & 11
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 294] 323@34] 326 rFkk 506 Hkkx 2 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 200 rFkk 202 & izR;FkhZ dz-2 ds fo:} mica/kksa ds v/khu izkbosV ifjokn jftLVMZ & iqujh{k.k esa vk{ksfir & vkosnd dks izR;FkhZ ds :i esa i{kdkj cuk, fcuk rFkk lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj fn, fcuk eatwj & izR;FkhZ mUeqDr & vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k esa vkosnd dks izR;FkhZ ds :i esa vkjksi ds fy, cqykuk izR;FkhZ dz-2 ds Hkkx ij vkc}dkjh Fkk & iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; dks vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k dk fofu'p; djus ds iwoZ vkosnd dks lquuk pkfg, Fkk & vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr & ekeyk vkosnd dks lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds i'pkr~ ekeyk u;s fljs ls lquus ds fy, okil izR;kofrZr & iqujh{k.k eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k esa vkosnd dks izR;FkhZ ds :i esa vkjksi ds fy, cqykuk izR;FkhZ dz-2 ds Hkkx ij vkc}dkjh Fkk iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; dks vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k dk fofu'p; djus ds iwoZ vkosnd dks lquuk pkfg, FkkA ¼1985½ 2 ,l lh lh 537] ¼2006½ 4 ,l lh lh 359 rFkk ¼2008½ 8 ,l lh lh vuqlfjrA 2010 ¼1½ ,u lh lh 55 rFkk 2006 ¼3½ dzkbEl 155 voyafcrA
¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 401¼1½] ¼2½] ¼3½] ¼4½ rFkk ¼5½ & 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & l= U;k;ky; lHkh ;k dksbZ Hkh 'kfDr dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS & tks fd mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mica/k ds v/khu iz;ksx dh tk ldrh gS & fdlh vU; O;fDr ds fgr ds izfrdwy dksbZ Hkh vkns'k ikfjr ugha gksxk tc rd fd mls O;fDrxr :i ls ;k mlds dkmUlsy }kjk lquokbZ dk volj u fn;k x;k gksA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11½
1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by 2nd ASJ, Sironj, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.84/2015.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint against the respondent under section 200 of CrPC. For offences punishable under sections 341, 294, 323/34, 326 and 506 Part II of IPC.
3. The Magistrate by order dated 13.7.2015 took cognizance of offence against the respondent No.2 for the offences mentioned above.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal revision, however, the applicant was not made a party to the said revision. The revisional Court also did not issue notice to the applicant and ultimately partly allowed the revision and discharged the respondent No.2 for offence punishable under section 326 of IPC.
5. A singular contention has been made by the counsel for the applicant that it was obligatory on the part of the revisional Court to hear the applicant prior to passing any order against his interest. The respondent No.2 neither made the applicant as a respondent, nor any notice was issued to him by the revisional Court and without hearing him, the revisional Court has partly allowed the revision and has discharged the respondent No.2 for offence under section 326 of IPC.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents, that the interest of the respondent was taken care of by the Public Prosecutor and therefore, under this circumstance, it was not obligatory on the part of the revisional Court to give an opportunity of personal hearing.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, reported in (1985)2 SCC 537, has held as under :
“4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2)(i) of section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things : (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of section 156. Where, in either of these two situations, the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence and to issue process, the informant is not prejudicially affected nor is the injured or in case of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved, because cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate that the case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in the first information report, the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the first information report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose, wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the first information
