Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Shaila Damodar Sinai Borkar and Dr. Priti Siddsh Kharangate, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking two reliefs: to quash and set aside the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, and to quash FIR No.125/2025 registered against them under Sections 442, 427, 504, 379 r/w 34 of IPC at Ponda Police Station. The background of the case is that Respondent No.3, Vasudev Premanand Sinai Borkar, had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned JMFC, A Court, Ponda, seeking direction to register an FIR against the petitioners. The JMFC dismissed that application on 15.03.2024. Aggrieved, Respondent No.3 preferred Criminal Revision Application No.66/2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Merces, sitting at Ponda. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 20.08.2025, allowed the revision, set aside the JMFC's order, and directed the police to register an FIR. Consequently, FIR No.125/2025 was registered on 30.08.2025. The petitioners challenged both the Sessions Court order and the FIR. The core legal issue was whether the accused/proposed accused must be heard before the Revisional Court in a revision against rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application. The petitioners argued that they were not heard by the Sessions Judge, violating principles of natural justice and the requirement of law. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the accused must be heard in such revisions, as the order directly affects their liberty and reputation. The court found that the Sessions Judge had passed the order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which was a clear violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 was set aside, and consequently, FIR No.125/2025 was quashed. The court allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Right to be Heard - Section 397, 399, 401 CrPC, 1973 - The accused/proposed accused must be heard before the Revisional Court when a revision is filed against the rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge was set aside for not hearing the petitioners, and consequently the FIR was quashed. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused/proposed accused is required to be heard before the Revisional Court in a revision at the instance of the Complainant whose application under Section 156(3) of CrPC is rejected by the Magistrate.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. Consequently, FIR No.125/2025 dated 30.08.2025 registered against the Petitioners under Sections 442, 427, 504, 379 r/w 34 of IPC at Ponda Police Station is quashed. The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- revision against rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC
- accused must be heard before Revisional Court
- quashing of FIR for procedural illegality
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No.5 of 2026
Ms Anushka Kuvelkar, Advocate for the Petitioners; Mr Nikhil Vaze, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State; Mr Kabir Sabnis, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Smt. Shaila Damodar Sinai Borkar and Dr. Priti Siddsh Kharangate
The Officer Incharge, Police Inspector, Ponda, Goa; State, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at Porvorim, Goa; Shri Vasudev Premanand Sinai Borkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of Sessions Court order and FIR
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to quash FIR No.125/2025 registered against them
Filing Reason
Petitioners were not heard by the Sessions Judge while deciding the revision application, violating principles of natural justice
Previous Decisions
JMFC dismissed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 15.03.2024; Sessions Judge allowed revision on 20.08.2025 and directed registration of FIR; FIR registered on 30.08.2025
Issues
Whether the accused/proposed accused is required to be heard before the Revisional Court in a revision at the instance of the Complainant whose application under Section 156(3) of CrPC is rejected by the Magistrate.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were not heard by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding Criminal Revision Application No.66/2024, violating the requirement of law and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Respondent No.3 opposed the petition, but the court found merit in the petitioners' submission.
Ratio Decidendi
The accused/proposed accused must be heard before the Revisional Court in a revision against rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. The order passed without hearing the accused is illegal and liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
Although, various grounds are set out in the Petition on merits, the Petitioners have restricted themselves to a short question of law. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioners that they were not heard by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding Criminal Revision Application No.66/2024 in a clear violation of the requirement of law and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The question that arises for my consideration is, whether, in law, the accused/proposed accused is required to be heard before the Revisional Court in a revision at the instance of the Complainant whose application under Section 156(3) of CrPC is rejected by the Magistrate.
Procedural History
Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before JMFC, Ponda, which was dismissed on 15.03.2024. Respondent No.3 filed Criminal Revision Application No.66/2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Merces, sitting at Ponda. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision on 20.08.2025 and directed registration of FIR. FIR No.125/2025 was registered on 30.08.2025. Petitioners then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.5 of 2026 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was allowed on 02.04.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 442, 427, 504, 379, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 156(3), 397, 399, 401
