Proposed accused must be heard in revision against order rejecting Section 156(3) CrPC application.

The Petitioners, a senior citizen and her daughter (a doctor), were named in an application filed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ponda.

The JMFC dismissed the application on March 15, 2024.

Respondent No. 3 subsequently filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Additional Sessions Judge.

On August 20, 2025, the Sessions Judge allowed the revision, set aside the JMFC’s order, and directed the police to register an FIR against the Petitioners without providing them an opportunity to be heard.

Consequently, FIR No. 125/2025 was registered.

the Petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the Sessions Judge's order and the FIR.

Section 401(2) of the CrPC mandates that no order in revision shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or "other person" unless they have had an opportunity of being heard in their own defence.

Section 399(2) of the CrPC extends the powers and procedural requirements of the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction to the Sessions Judge.

The Supreme Court precedents of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel (2012) and Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) established that the right of hearing in a Revisional Court exists for a suspect regardless of whether the stage is pre-process or post-process.

The court examined the statutory framework of Sections 397, 399, and 401 of the CrPC, concluding that the mandate to hear a party before passing an order to their prejudice is absolute in revisionary proceedings.

The court rejected the Respondent's contention that a hearing was unnecessary because the Magistrate’s order was "pre-cognizance".

Referring to the Full Bench decision in Jagannath Verma v. State of UP, the court reasoned that while a prospective accused has no right to be heard during the original Section 156(3) proceedings before a Magistrate, they acquire a substantive right to defend a favorable order when it is challenged in a higher forum.

The court found that the Sessions Judge’s order directing the registration of an FIR significantly prejudiced the Petitioners without granting them the statutory hearing required under Section 401(2).

Thus, the order was procedurally and legally flawed.

The court quashed the Sessions Judge's order dated August 20, 2025, and the resulting FIR No. 125/2025.

The matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Merces (sitting at Ponda), with directions to add the Petitioners as respondents and decide the revision afresh after giving them an opportunity to be heard.