Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Filing a revision petition against cognizance orders does not require the complainant to be a party; the court can entertain such revisions even if the complainant is not involved or has not challenged the order initially ["Izhar Ansari VS Bibi Rehana Khatoon - Patna"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Amrita jain vs State of NCT, Delhi - Delhi"]- ["Shahid Ali and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Abdul Aziz VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Izhar Ansari VS Bibi Rehana Khatoon - Patna"]
In criminal proceedings, the order of cognizance taken by a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) marks a critical stage. It signifies the court's decision to proceed against the accused based on a complaint or police report. But what happens when the accused seeks to challenge this order through a revision petition under Sections 397 or 401 CrPC? A common query arises: Complainant is not necessary party while filing revision petition challenge the order of cognizance. Is the complainant required to be impleaded as a necessary party at the filing stage? This blog delves into the procedural nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory principles to provide clarity.
While this post offers general insights based on established case law, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Taking cognizance is not a mere formality; the Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind to the materials before it, ensuring the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Once cognizance is taken, the accused may file a revision petition before the Sessions Court or High Court if there's a jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or violation of natural justice.
The scope of revision is narrow. Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views unless grave injustice or procedural lapses are evident. As held in key judgments, the revisional court cannot interfere with a cognizance order unless there is a procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice, such as failure to give notice or opportunity to be heard Gulab Jati VS State of Rajasthan - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 1618.
Generally, the complainant is not a necessary party at the initial filing stage of a revision petition challenging cognizance. Revision under Section 397 CrPC is typically initiated by the aggrieved accused against an order that prejudices their rights. The petition primarily involves the accused (petitioner) and the State or the court below as respondents.
However, principles of natural justice kick in during adjudication. The revisional court must afford an opportunity of hearing to affected parties before passing any order prejudicial to them. Section 401(2) CrPC explicitly states: no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or through counsel in his own defence Surajmal Karwa VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 1113. This underscores that while filing doesn't mandate impleading the complainant, hearings require notice to interested parties, potentially including the complainant if their interests are impacted.
In BODU RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 1273, the court clarified that orders passed without affording an opportunity of hearing violate natural justice, emphasizing notice to necessary parties during revision proceedings.
Filing a revision demands strict adherence to procedure:
Failure to follow these can render the revision order unsustainable, as seen in cases where orders were set aside for lacking hearings Surajmal Karwa VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 1113.
Several judgments reinforce these principles. In a case involving protest petitions, the revisional court set aside an order directing cognizance without hearing the accused, remanding for fresh adjudication Surajmal Karwa VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 1113. Similarly, Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 565 notes that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may, dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case, highlighting flexibility in complainant's role at initial stages, which extends to revisions.
In Somula Venkatasubba Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(AP) 662, a de facto complainant filed revision against dismissal of a protest petition, but the focus was on the Magistrate's duty to take cognizance based on prima facie materials, not mandating complainant as party in accused's revision. The court directed cognizance against additional accused, underscoring limited enquiry under Section 202 CrPC: The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not.
Under specific statutes like the Negotiable Instruments Act, locus standi matters. Rajesh Kukreja vs State of U.P. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 12 held: A third-party complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable unless filed by the payee or holder in due course, quashing summons where complainant lacked standing—relevant when revisions question complainant's role.
Public servant prosecutions under Section 197 CrPC also illustrate: No sanction needed for offences unconnected to duties, and courts can examine maintainability suo motu without complainant input at every step Z. U. AHMAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1997 Supreme(All) 1184.
Not all lapses vitiate proceedings. Procedural irregularities like non-service of summons may be curable under Section 537 CrPC unless they breach natural justice U. P. Elect. Board Through Its Chairman VS Triveni Engineering Works - 1996 4 Supreme 578. Revisional courts cannot quash cognizance outright without due process; instead, they may remand for enquiry Kishan Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 385.
In NI Act cases, cognizance requires recording complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC before proceeding Kishan Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 737, but revisions by accused don't necessitate complainant as party ab initio.
Parties should verify if the cognizance order followed due appreciation of evidence, as emphasized in Girish Kumar Suneja VS C. B. I. - 2017 5 Supreme 466: taking cognizance via affidavit is permissible if judicial mind is applied.
In summary, while the initial filing doesn't require the complainant, robust procedural safeguards ensure fairness. This balance protects accused rights without unduly burdening proceedings. For tailored advice, engage legal experts familiar with local High Court practices.
References: Judicial precedents cited inline from reported cases.
#CrPCRevision #CognizanceOrder #CriminalLaw
Even if the earlier order on cognizance was wrong, the complainant ought to have challenged the same and any infirmity could not be cured in a protest petition filed for taking re-cognizance. ... While in a complaint case it is necessary to put a party to notice before taking cognizance, the present case stems from a police report and there was no cause for the Court to issue notice to the accused prior to cognizance#HL_EN....
Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of S.401(2) of the Code, the suspects get right of hearing before Revisional court although such order was passed without their participation. ... ... The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order date 02.07.2014, passed by the Court of ....
the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistratemay, dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. ... It is pertinent to note here that the revision petition was given a temporary filing number – SR No. 138/2024. Further, the impugned order was apparently passed in an application bearing Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024 in SR No. 138/2024. ... The Court of Sessions is not having power to take the cognizance....
filing this Criminal Revision Case. ... The said order of taking cognizance was not challenged by the petitioner/ de facto complainant. He had chosen to file this Criminal Revision Case assailing the order dated 19.10.2018 passed in CFR No.912 of 2018 whereby the protest petition filed by him was dismissed. ... In the case on hand, the de facto complainant has presented a report to the police and the same was regis....
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the arguments and petition for revision vehemently and submitted that the trial court was fully convinced with the facts of the case and thus took cognizance on the complaint after inquiry and summoned the accused/revisionist. ... A complaint regarding the same was filed on which initially the trial court raised a query regarding the locus of the complainant but later on took cognizance and summoned the accused/revisionis....
C. was not necessary. ... C. envisages that no cognizance should be taken in a case where sanction is necessary. The non-obstante clause signifies that if a Magistrate takes cognizance in a case where sanction is necessary the said order becomes bad in law or void. ... right to see the maintainability of the petition of complainant. ... Registering a case does not in any imagination be construed as taking #HL_START....
Upon filing of such protest petition, the learned Magistrate has to record the statements of de-facto complainant and other witnesses, either by issuing summons or not, as contemplated under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. ... The learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C i.e. filing of the protest petition and examination of witnesses. Hence, the present revision case is filed. 7. ... The arguments of learned counse....
The learned Public Prosecutor could not controvert the fact that the complainant petitioner was not heard by the revisional Court. As a matter of fact, he was even not made a party by the non-petitioner while filing the revision petition before the said Court. ... The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is that it was necessary for the revisional Court to have afforded oppor....
in his petition about challenging the said order and in absence of such challenge it would not be appropriate for this court to entertain this petition. ... I am of the view that once the petitioners have approached the revisional court challenging the order of cognizance, it was necessary on their part to challenge the order of the revisional court. In the present case no such prayer has been made by the petitione....
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before filing of the complaint by the first respondent, the petitioner purchased property from third respondent. Therefore, she is a necessary party to the proceedings. ... Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by Magistrate issuing process only against respondents 2 to 4 or to approach the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate relief.....
The complainant had obtained an Expert opinion from Testing & Consultancy Cell, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College which was examined by a committee comprising of Dr. H.S.Rai, Dean Testing & Consultancy, Er. Balwinder Singh, Associate Professor and Dr. Harmeet Singh, Associate Professor, who, in their report, dated 28.09.2015 have stated five reasons for the cause of noise and have concluded that there was a manufacturing defect and that their report is only an Expert Technical Opinion and no testing of the vehicle has been done. This order has also become final as the complainant ....
Now, after allowing the revision petition filed by the State, the complainant came into the picture and was opposing the prayer. Even respondent No. 2 complainant was not made as a party to the said revision petition. The order of the trial Court discharging the petitioners was never challenged by the complainant.
The said order was challenged by the complainant by filing the revision petition. The concerned Magistrate after hearing both the parties rejected the protest petition vide order dated 22.06.2005 and accepted the final negative report.
2. The case has chequered history inasmuch as on filing of complaint for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act"), the order of cognizance was passed taking into consideration affidavit filed by complainant. It was precisely on the ground that a complaint filed under section 190 Cr.P.C. needs to be dealt with as per provisions of Cr.P.C. itself as provisions of Negotiable Instruments The revision petition was filed by accused to challenge the order of cognizance.
However, counsel for the petitioner stated that the said order is under challenge at the hands of the petitioner by filing revision petition. Impugned order Annexure P-5 is not vitiated on account of subsequent order Annexure P-6. Annexure P-6 passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife. Consequently, in the said revision petition, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief regarding payment of double maintenance for the same period pursuant to orders Anne....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
