SMT. SUBHA RAJ AND ANR. versus SANKAR SARKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 24-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SUBHA RAJ AND ANR. 
\I. 
SANKAR SARKAR AND ANR. 
JUL y 24, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 401 r/w s. 402 and 482---Crimina( 
Revision-Second revision petition-Before High Court-Against dismissal 
A 
B 
of complaint-Revision petition treated by High Court to be uls 482, and C 
direction for issue of process-Order passed without hearing the accused-
Propriety of-Held: Second revision is barred -Though at the time of issuance 
of process and taking cognizance, accused has no right to be heard-But in 
view of the fact that the accused were heard before first Revisional court, and. 
the names of the accused were deletedfrom the cause title at the behest of 
the complainant, High Court should have heard the accused-Matter remitted D 
to High Court. 
Respondent No. 1 filed criminal complaint against the appellants. The 
Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Respondent No. 1 filed revision before 
Addi. District and Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed. He then filed 
another revision petition u/s. 401 r/w 402 Cr.P.C. before High Court. High .E 
Court treated the petition to be under s. 482 Cr.P.C. and directed the 
Magistrate to issue process against the appellants. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that High Court erroneously 
treated the petition to be u/s 482 as the same was styled to be u/s 401 r/w F 
402; and that they were not heard by the High Court before allowing the 
petition. 
Respondent No. 1 contended that in the matter of issuance of process, 
the accused has no right to be beard. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the G. 
Court 
HELD: 1. The case was r~gistered to be one under the criminal 
revisional jurisdiction and in view of the bar contained in the Cr.P.C. second 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A revision was not maintainable. In any event, appellants were not heard before 
the order was passed. [Para 6) (495-01 
2. Though at the time of issuance of process and taking cognizance the 
accused has no right to be heard. But in the facts of the instant case before 
the Revisional Court the appellants were heard. Further, their names were 
B indicated in the cause title, which at the request of respondent No.I were 
deleted. This being the position the High Court ought to have heard the 
appellants before deciding the matter. (Paras 8 and 9J (495-E, FJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 
c 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.01.2006 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in CRR No. 2203 of2005. 
Dhruv Mehta, Rana S. Biswas and Sarla Chandra for the Appellants. 
D 
Tara Chandra Shanna, Neelam Shanna, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Priya Puri, 
E 
U.B. Banerjee, V.M. Chuhan and S.K. Shanna for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the application under Section 40 I 
read with Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I 973 (in short the 
'Code'). 
F 
3. The main grievance in support of the petition is that the appellants 
were not granted opportunity of being heard before the petition was allowed 
by . the learned Judge. 
4. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 
G 
Appellant No. I is the wife of appellant No.2 who is a doctor by 
profession. Respondent No. I filed a complaint alleging commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 323, 342, 382, 386 read with Section 1208 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The learned Magistrate dismissed 
the complaint after recording statements of the complainant and two others. 
H Questioning correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, an 
5 
I 
-( 
. -f 
.. 
SUBHA RAJ v. SANKAR SARKAR [PASA YAT, J.] 
495 
application for revision was filed before the learned Additional District and A 
. Sessions Judge, First Track Court V, Alipore, South 24-Parganas. After hearing 
the revision petitioner-respondent No. I herein the said revision petition was 
dismissed. 
5. Before the High Court the revision petition was treated to be one 
under Section 482 of the Code, though styled as one under Section 40 I read B 
with Section 402 of the Code. The High Court allowed the petition and 
directed the Magistrate to issue process against the appellants. 
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that before t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.