Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal writ petition filed by two petitioners, a senior citizen and her daughter, seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 442, 427, 504, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the revisional order that led to its registration. The respondent-complainant had initially filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), which was dismissed on 15 March 2024. The complainant then filed a criminal revision application before the Sessions Judge, which was allowed on 20 August 2025, setting aside the JMFC's order and directing registration of the FIR, resulting in FIR No.125/2025 on 30 August 2025. The petitioners challenged this, arguing they were not heard by the Sessions Judge in the revision, violating statutory requirements. The core legal issue was whether the accused or proposed accused must be heard in a revision filed by a complainant against dismissal of a Section 156(3) CrPC application. The petitioners contended that Section 401(2) CrPC mandates such hearing, supported by Supreme Court precedents like Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu. The respondent argued that the right depends on whether cognizance was taken, claiming no right in pre-cognizance stages, relying on Union of India v. W.N. Chadha. The court analyzed Sections 397, 399, and 401 of CrPC, noting that Section 401(2) explicitly requires hearing before passing a prejudicial order in revision, and Section 399 incorporates this for Sessions Judge. It rejected the respondent's distinction based on cognizance, citing Santhakumari where the Supreme Court held the right applies irrespective of stage. The court found the Sessions Judge's order violated this statutory right, as petitioners were not heard. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the revisional order dated 20 August 2025 and the FIR dated 30 August 2025, holding that the failure to provide hearing vitiated the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Right to Hearing of Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 399, 401(2) - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR and revisional order, arguing they were not heard by Sessions Judge in revision against dismissal of Section 156(3) CrPC application - Court held that Section 401(2) CrPC mandates opportunity of hearing to accused or other person before passing prejudicial order in revision, and Section 399 incorporates this requirement for Sessions Judge - Violation of this statutory right vitiates the revisional order (Paras 6-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Applicability of Section 401(2) to Pre-cognizance Stage - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 156(3), 401(2) - Respondent argued right to hearing depends on whether Magistrate took cognizance, claiming no right in pre-cognizance stage like dismissal of Section 156(3) application - Court rejected this, citing Supreme Court precedent in Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu that right under Section 401(2) applies regardless of pre-process or post-process stage - Held that proposed accused must be heard in revision against dismissal of Section 156(3) application (Paras 13-14).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: 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
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Sessions Judge and FIR No.125/2025 dated 30.08.2025 quashed and set aside.
