BAL MANOHAR JALAN versus SUNIL PASWAN & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 30-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 900 
BAL MANOHAR JALAN 
v. 
SUNIL PASWAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2014) 
JUNE 30, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.401(2) - Right' of 
hearing given to accused under - Compliance of - Held: In a 
c criminal revision before the High Court, accused person 
cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express 
provision contained in s. 401 (2) of the Code. 
The father of the respondent no.1 filed a complaint 
0 against five accused persons. The appellant was 
mentioned as accused No.4 in First Information Report. 
The complainant filed a protest-cum-complaint petition in 
the said case. Final report was filed, cognizance was 
taken against accused no.1 alone for the alleged offences 
u/s' 328 and 302 IPC and the other four accused 
~ mentioned in the FIR were discharged from the case. The 
protest-cum-complaint petition was also rejected. The 
complainant died. Respondent no.1 filed the Criminal 
Revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. and the High 
Court without issuing notice to the concerned accused 
F passed the order. Hence, the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, challenge is laid to 
G order at the instance of the complainant in the revision 
petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 
401 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the 
accused mentioned in the First Information Report get. 
the right of hearing before the revisional court although 
H 
900 
BAL MANOHAR JALAN v. SUNIL PASWAN 
901 
the impugned order therein was passed without their A 
participation. The appellant who is an accused person 
cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express 
provision contained in Section 401 (2) of the Code and on 
this' ground, the impugned order of the High Court is set 
aside and the matter is remitted back. [Para 8) (906-C-E] 
B 
1.2. Though other grounds such as charge-sheet 
having been filed and the cognizance has been taken 
against accused No.1, the protest petition cannot be 
treated as a complaint warranting an independent inquiry, C 
have been raised in this appeal, it is not necessary to 
consider the same since the matter is remitted for fresh 
consideration and it is open to the appellant to raise them 
before the High Court. [Para 9) (906-E-F] 
Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. 
D 
Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others 2012 (8) SCR 
1015:(2012) 10 sec 517 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2012 (8) SCR 1015 
Referred to 
Para 5, 7 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1247 of 2014 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2011 in CRLR 
E 
No. 830/2009 of the High Court of Patna. 
F 
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
S.B. Upadhyay (A.C.), Santosh Mishra, Vijaiendra Nigam, 
Krishnam Mishra, Param Mishra, Kaustv P. Pathak, Gopal G 
Singh, Manish Kumar, Shubhra Rai for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
2. This appeal is preferred against the impugned order 
B 
dated 18.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2009 whereby the High 
Court allowed the Criminal Revision filed by the respondent 
No.1 herein. 
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present 
appeal are stated as follows: The father of the respondent No.1 
herein filed a complaint on 24.5.2003 against five accused 
persons alleging therein that they had committed murder of son 
of the complainant by name Anil Paswan by administering 
C 
poison. A case was registered in First Information Report 
No.96 of 2003 on the file of Chowk Police Station, Patna City, 
on 28.5.2003 against 5 accused persons for the alleged 
offences under Section 328/302/34 IPC. During investigation, 
the complainant filed a protest-cum-complaint petition on 
D 
7.6.2003 which was kept on record. The investigation officer 
submitted the final report in the case on 31.5.2008 against 
accused No.1 Sunita Devi alone under Section 328/302 IPC 
for the murder of Anil Paswan. The Addi. Chief Judicial 
Magistiete, Patna City, perused the charge-sheet and the case 
E 
diary as well as the protest-cum-complaint petition dated 
7.6.2003 and took .cognizance for the offences under Section 
328/302 IPC against accused No.1 Sunita Devi and 
discharged accused Nos. 2 to 5 in the First Information Report 
F 
from the case and rejected the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.