Revisional order under Section 156(3) CrPC passed without hearing prospective accused is legally unsustainable.

The Respondent No. 1 (complainant) filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging assault and theft by her husband and relatives.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Gwalior, rejected this application twice (lastly on 08.05.2025) after considering status reports.

Respondent No. 1 challenged the second rejection via Criminal Revision No. 175/2025.

On 07.07.2025, the 22nd Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision, set aside the JMFC’s order, and remanded the matter without issuing notice to the petitioners.

Consequently, the JMFC directed the registration of an FIR, leading to Crime No. 451/2025.

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Sec 482 Cr.P.C.) to quash these orders.

1. Whether the Revisional Court can set aside a Magistrate’s order rejecting a Section 156(3) application and direct the registration of an FIR without affording the proposed accused an opportunity of being heard.

2. Whether the mandate of Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Natural Justice in Revision) applies to pre-cognizance proceedings arising from Section 156(3).

The court primarily applied Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to the BNSS), which mandates that no order to the prejudice of the accused or "any other person" shall be made in revision unless they have had an opportunity of being heard.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent Santhakumari and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2023) 15 SCC 440, which established that hearing the proposed accused is mandatory in revisions arising from Section 156(3) if the order causes prejudice.

It further followed the Allahabad High Court Full Bench in Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 2014 ALL 214, holding that a rejection of a 156(3) application is a revisable final order, and Section 401(2) applies therein.

The Court reasoned that while a proposed accused may not have a right to be heard before the Magistrate during the initial consideration of a Section 156(3) application, the legal landscape changes once the matter enters revisional jurisdiction.

Under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C., the term "any other person" is wide enough to include prospective accused individuals.

The court noted that the Revisional Court’s order directly resulted in the registration of an FIR (Crime No. 451/2025), which entails significant prejudice such as potential arrest and coercive investigation.

Since the petitioners were identified individuals and the Revisional Court reversed a favorable order (the JMFC’s rejection) without notice to them, the proceedings were vitiated by a violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice.

The High Court set aside the Revisional Court's order dated 07.07.2025 and the JMFC’s consequential order dated 17.07.2025.

The matter was remanded to the 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, with directions to implead the petitioners as parties and decide the revision afresh after affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing.