LexPRABHA MATHUR & ANR. versus PRAMOD AGGARWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1086 j .,,. A PRABHA MATHUR & ANR. II. PRAMOD AGGARWAL & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.1532 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 ~ .. B '"-..-- [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Writ petition - Disposal of - Notice and opportunity of hearing - Requirement of - Complaint of cheating against c appellants - Dismissal of, by Trial Court and Sessions Judge - Complainant filing writ petition - High Court allowing writ petition without issuing notice to appellants and without afford- ing opportunity of hearing - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - High Court arrived at a finding as to mens rea on part of ap- D pellants which could not be arrived at without issuing notice to lo- ... appellants and without affording opportunity of hearing - Moreso, when appellants were joined as respondents in writ petitions - In any event, in accordance with Rule 2 of Chapter XX/I of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, notice was required E to be issued to appellants before hearing and deciding writ petitions - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter XX/I - Rule 2 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 r. w. ss.34 and 1208 - Principles of natural justice - Administra- five Law. F Prosecution case was that the complainants were ~ 1 in the business of sale and purchase of property. They contacted appellants for purchase of property owned by appellants. The appellants sold the property to the com- plainant and received payment from complainants. How- G ever, appellants did not come to the office of Sub-Regis- trar for registration of sale deeds as was agreed between them. Thereupon, a complaint case was filed against ap- pellants under ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 r.w. ss.34 and f ... 1208 IPC. Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the com- H 1086 PRABHA MATHUR & ANR. v. PRAMOD 1087 "t >. AGGARWAL & ORS. plaint holding that the case was civil in nature. This order A was upheld in revision petitions. The complainants filed writ petitions before High Court. High Court without issu- ing notice to the appellants and without affording oppor- ~ tunity of hearing allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to Chief Judicial Magistrate with direction to B make further enquiry in the matter. Hence the present appeal. _l)isposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High court, the Court c HELD: 1.1 It is no doubt true that the accused has no locus standi at the stage of investigation and he can- not insist for hearing before process is issued against him. At the most, an accused may remain present with a ) ~ view to be informed as to what is going on and nothing D more. It is equally correct that if a person has no locus standi or right of hearing, such right does not accrue in his favour by an indirect process. On the facts and in the circumstances of the .case, however, High, Court ought to have issued notice and afforded hearing before passing E the impugned order in writ-petitions. Both the Courts de- cided the case in favour of the appellants and the com- plaint was dismissed. The complainants approached the High Court by joining appellants as respondents. The writ .. ~ petitions were not dismissed in limine. !n' accordance with F Rule 2 of Chapter XXH of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, notices oughUo have been issued to the appellants before the writ petitions were heard and finally decided, But even otherwise, issuance of such notice to the ap- pellants was necessary and was in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. From the record G it is clear that the present appellants were arrayed as re- ~- i- spondents in the writ petitions and yetthe High Court did not think it appropriate to observe natural justice. [Paras 16-19, 24] (1093,B; 1093,C-F; 1095,D] H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R A Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & B Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736; Chandru Oeo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose & Anr (1964) 1 SCR 639 and in Shashi Jena & Ors. v. Khadal Swain & Anr AIR (2004) 4 SCC 236 - re- ferred to. 1.2. Even on merits, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable. The High Court made certain observations against the appellants which prejudicially and adversely affected them. High Court had given "anx- ious consideration" to the matter and it found that there was C no question of not executing the sale deed according to the schedule or prescribed conditions by the appellants, but
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.