Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3007 of 2004 Applicant :- Sita Ram And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
2. Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the complaint and entire proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1651 of 2001 (Mohkam Singh Vs. Mahendra Pal Singh Verma and Others), under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Aligarh.
3. It is contended that complaint filed against applicants was rejected by Magistrate concerned vide order dated 21.06.2003 whereagainst Criminal Revision No. 455 of 2003 was filed which has been allowed vide order dated 30.10.2003 and Magistrate's order dated 21.06.2003 was set aside and directed to register the case against applicants under Section 420 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that Revisional Court has passed order without giving any opportunity of hearing to applicants, hence the same is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
5. A Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2011(1) ADJ 333 has held that at the stage of allowing application under Section 156 Cr.P.C., directing to register FIR, accused has no right to be heard. Further against such order for registering FIR, no revision is maintainable at the instance of accused.
6. The aforesaid judgment has been followed and explained by another Full Bench of this Court in Jagannath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2014 All 214 by answering the question referred to it as under:
"(i) Before the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas, the controversy was whether a direction to the police to register a First Information Report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is open to revision at the instance of a person suspected of having committed a crime against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued. Such an order was held to be interlocutory in nature and, therefore, to attract the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397. The decision in Father Thomas does not decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application under Section 156 (3) would be amenable to a revision under Section 397 by the complainant or the informant whose application has been rejected;
(ii) An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397 ; and
(iii) In proceedings in revision under Section 397, the prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision. " (Emphasis Added)
7. In view of above exposition of law, application is allowed.
Impugned Revisional Court's order dated 30.10.2003 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to Revisional Court who shall consider and decide the same again, expeditiously, after giving opportunity of hearing to parties concerned, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Siddhant Sahu