IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 620 of 2024 ================================================================

MONA ARVIND PATEL Versus HITESHBHAI MAGANBHAI VALAMKAR & ORS.

================================================================

Appearance:

PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MS KRINA P CALLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 13/06/2024

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the party-in-person Mona Arvind Patel, who submits that she has challenged the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Addtional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad whereby her complaint came to be dismissed under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. Referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Brahmchari Satyanarayan Maharaj v. Kantilal L. Dave and Others reported in 1976 Cri. L.J. 1806 and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kesavan Sivan Pillai v. Sreedharan Rajamohan and Others reported in 1978 Cri. L.J. 743, it is submitted by the party-in-person that she has directly approached this Court since such right is referred to under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that such statutory right is guaranteed under the Cr.P.C. and the aggrieved person should not be compelled to go before the learned Sessions Judge Court as noted in the decision of Brahmchari Satyanarayan Maharaj (supra), since that would interfere with the choice of revisional forum in matters which might be of importance to the person in derogation of the inherent right flowing out of the provisions of law whereunder concurent jurisdiction is conferred on two different Courts. It is therefore, submitted that the present Revision Application would be maintainable.

3. Heard the submissions canvassed and perused the records of the case. The order which has been challenged is the dismissal order under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Against such an order, no Appeal would lie and therefore, the complainant has to prefer a Revision Application either before the Sessions Court or the High Court.

4. In the case of Brahmchari Satyanarayan Maharaj (supra), this Court has observed the net effect of Sections 397, 399, 401 and 402 of Cr.P.C. to state that while a person has the chance to move either the High Court or the Sessions Judge in revision and obtain complete relief in either of the two forums, if he makes the choice to go before the Sessions Judge who rejects the revision application he cannot thereafter approach High Court. And the aggrieved person who approaches the High Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance cannot be refused relief on the ground that unless special circumstances are made out, the Revision Application cannot be entertained because he had failed to approach the Sessions Court.

5. In the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517, the case was about dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.PC., where at the stage of Section 200 itself or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. culminated in termination of complaint proceedings. It was held that where the complainant filed a revision petition before the High Court or Sessions Judge, the accused / suspect arraigned in complaint gets right of hearing before the Revisional Court, as is expressly provided in Section 401(2), notwithstanding that order impugned in revision was passed without his participation.

6. In view of the above referred decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, RULE returnable on JULY 2, 2024. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.