Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2013
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRIMINAL)NO.6102 OF 2012)
M/S. PRIME IMPEX LTD. & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M/S. P.E.C. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order passed by the High Court at Delhi in Criminal Revision
Petition No.456 of 2011, dated 13.10.2011.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has taken exception to the findings and conclusions reached
by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in
JUDGMENT
Complaint Case No. 4060 of 2011 and accordingly, has allowed
the petition.
4. Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants would submit that the High
Court, while passing the order in Revision Petition filed
under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, had
not afforded the opportunity of hearing to the appellants
herein and submits that the same is opposed to the
principles laid down by this Court in the case of
Page 1
2
Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another vs. Shaileshbhai
Mohanbhai Patel and Others , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517.
In the said decision, this Court has stated as under:
“48. In case where the complaint has been
dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203
of the Code either at the stage of Section 200
itself or on completion of inquiry by the
Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of
the report from the police or from any person
to whom the direction was issued by the
Magistrate to investigate into the allegations
in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal
is termination of complaint proceedings. On a
plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section
401, it cannot be said that the person against
whom the allegations of having committed the
offence have been made in the complaint and
the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to
be heard because no process has been issued.
The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate
under Section 203 – although it is at
preliminary stage – nevertheless results in
termination of proceedings in a complaint
against the persons who are alleged to have
committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid
to such order at the instance of the
complainant in a revision petition before the
High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of
Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get
the right of hearing before the Revisional
Court although such order was passed without
their participation. The right given to
“accused” or “the other person” under Section
401(2) of being heard before the Revisional
Court to defend an order which operates in his
favour should not be confused with the
proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections
200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision
petition before the High Court or the Sessions
Judge at the instance of the complainant
challenging the order of dismissal of
complaint, one of the things that could happen
is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and
revival of the complaint. It is in this view
of the matter that the accused or other person
cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of
the express provision contained in Section
JUDGMENT
Page 2
3
401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important
whether it is pre-process stage or post-
process stage.”
5. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the High
Court was not justified in passing the order without
affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the
matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in
accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing
to the appellants.
7. All the contentions raised by both the parties are
left open.
Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 18, 2013.
Page 3