LexRAGHU RAJ SINGH ROUSHA versus M/S. SHIVAM SUNDRARAM PROMOTERS (P) L & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 833 RAGHU RAJ SINGH ROUSHA A v. ~ MIS. SHIVAM SUNDRARAM PROMOTERS (P) L & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2054 of 2008) DECEMBER 17, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] · Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XV and ss . ... 397, 401- Complaint u/s. 200 rlw s. 156(3) - Magistrate ~ refusing the application u/s. 156(3) and directing the c complainant to proceed in terms of Chapter XV - Revision application - Disposal of by High Court - Without hearing the accused - On appeal, held: Disposal of revision without hearing the accused not correct - Since the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, the accused was entitled to D .. be heard in revision -The revision case being at pre- summoning stage, even if the affected person is not an . -..\ accused, he is entitled to be heard by virtue of s. 401(3) - Principle of audi alteram partem is applicable to the proceedings of the High Court - Principle of natural justice - E Principle of audi alteram partem. Respondent No. 1-Company filed a complaint uls. 200 CrPC against the appellant for offences punishable ulss. 323, 382, 420, 465, 466, 471, 120-B, 506 and 34 IPC, accompanied by an application u/s. 156(3) CrPC. The F Metropolitan Magistrate refused to direct investigation in . ..........,, terms of s. 156(3) opining that the complaint could be dealt with u/s. 200 CrPC and subsequent provisions. It directed the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence. Complainant filed a revision application challenging the order of the Magistrate against State G without impleading the appellant therein. High Court set aside the order of Magistrate. ~"""' In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that di&po&al of revi&ion application without notice to the .... • 833 H 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A appellant, was not correct. B Respondent-complainant contended that revision application having been filed at pre-cognizance stage, the appellant had no right to be heard as he could not have been called an accused at that stage. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. When a complaint petition is filed under Chapter XV CrPC, the Magistrate ha~ a few options in regard to exercise of his jurisdiction. He may take cognizance of the offence and issue summons. He may C also postpone the issue of process so as to satisfy himself that the allegations made in the complaint petition are prima facie correct and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the D purpose of deciding as to whether or not there is sufficien~ ground for proceeding. [Para 9) [838-F-G] 1.2. In the instant case, the Magistrate had taken cognizance. He had applied his mind. He refused to exercise his jurisdiction u/s. 156(3) CrPC. He arrived at a E conclusion thaUhe dispute is a private dispute in relation to an immovable property and, thus, police investigation is not necessary. It was only with that intent in view, he directed examination of the compl_ainant and his witnesses so as to initiate and complete the procedure F laid down under Chapter XV CrPC. If he had taken cognizance of the offence and merely issuance of summons upon the accused persons had been postponed in a criminal revision filed on behalf of the complainant, the accused was entitled to be heard before G the High Court. [Pa-r~s 10 and 18) [839-A-B; 843-C-D] 1.3. It cannot be said that the appellant was not prejudiced by, the impugned order and at the pre- summoning stage he could not be called an accused. Sub-section (2) of Section 401 Cr.PC refers not only to an accused but also to any person and if he is prejudiced, H .>--·- .. ' RAGHU RAJ SINGH ROUSHA v. SHIVAM 835 '"" SUNDRARAM PROMOTERS (P) L & ANR. -( he is required to be heard. An order was passed partially A in favour of the appellant by the Magistrate. Had an -1 opportunity of hearing been given to· the appellant, he ,, could have shown that no revision application was maintainable and/ or even otherwise, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. 8 The High Court shall implead the appellant as a party in the criminal revision application and hear the matter afresh. [Paras 12 and 19) [839-E-F-G-H; 843-E] ... Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri vs. S.S. Satyanarayan ·~ (1981) 1SCC62; P.Sundarrajan and Ors. vs. R. Vidhya Sekar c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.