.A
B
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 490
RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS.
v.
RAKESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2009)
APRIL 17, 2009
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 3971401 -
Revision - Maintainability of - complaint uls. 156(3) -
C Magistrate directing registration of FIR - Revision by accused
before Sessions Judge - Operation of the impugned order
stayed - Revision by complainant before High Court - High
Court passing the order, without issuing notice to the accused,
holding that accused of a cognizable offence cannot file
D revision before registration of FIR as the order uls. 156(3) is
an administrative order - On appeal, plea that matter since
closed by court conclusively, accused was required to be
heard on the question of maintainability of the revision - Mater
remitted to High Court.
E
F
G
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 760 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.122007 of the High
Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Crl. Revision No. 435/2007.
KTS Tulsi, Bharat Sangal, Mrinalini Oinam and Varnika
Tamar for the Appellants.
Arup Banerjee, R. Shekhar, R.K. Dey, R.K. Srivastava, for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
490
RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS. v. RAKESH KUMAR
491
YADAV & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
A
learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who allowed
the application filed in terms of Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
·code') assailing the order passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Jaunpur. The primary stand taken in this appeal is that
B
the revision petition was allowed and disposed of even without
issuance of notice to the present appellants .
..
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellants filed for revision before the learned
c
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur questioning correctness of the order
passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Single
Judge held that no person who is accused of a cognizable
offence can file for revision before registration of FIR against
him since the order under Section 156(3) of Code is an
D
administrative order at a pre cognizance stage under Chapter
XII of Code.
4. It is submitted that the revision petition had been fiWd
by the present respondents. If the High Court was of the view
E
that the order of learned Sessions Judge was indefensible it
ought to have granted an opportunity to the present appellants
to have their say in the matter. The learned Single Judge
closed the issues conclusively by holding that the revision
petition was not maintainable. If that was the view the learned
F
Single Judge ought to have given a notice to the present
appellants to show that the revision was maintainable. By
disposing of the application without issuance of notice to the
present appellants, they are prejudiced and the impugned order
cannot be sustained in law.
G
J
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that at the cognizance stage no notice need be given
to the accused. Since the order was passed in favour of the
present appellants, same ought not to have been set aside
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A without issuance of notice to them.
6. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order
and remit the matter to the High Court. Let the parties appear
without further notice on 22.4.2009. We make it clear that we
8 have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Until the
disposal of the matter by the High Court the proceedings before
the trial Court shall remain stayed.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
K.K.T.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex