Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, seven individuals, were the original complainants in proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who passed an order on 4.1.2005 in their favor. The respondent No.1, Omprakash Tarachand Patel, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, challenging that order. The revisional court, by its judgment and order dated 10.2.2005, set aside the Magistrate's order without issuing notice to or hearing the petitioners, despite knowing that they were the complainants in the original proceedings. The petitioners challenged this revisional order before the Bombay High Court on the ground of violation of natural justice. The High Court perused a report from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who confirmed that the original complainants were required to be heard but that fact was not brought to his notice by the respondent No.1. The High Court held that the revisional court ought to have heard the petitioners before setting aside the order that was passed on their complaint. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned revisional order and remanded the matter back to the revisional court for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Right to be Heard - Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The revisional court set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without hearing the original complainants, who were the petitioners before the High Court. The court held that the revisional authority ought to have heard the complainants before passing an order adverse to them, as they were necessary parties to the revision application. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to the petitioners. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court could set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without hearing the original complainants who were the petitioners before the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Addl. II Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2005, and remanded the matter back to the revisional court for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- revisional jurisdiction
- Section 401 CrPC
- complainant's right to hearing
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 95
Criminal Writ Petition No. 724 of 2005
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, P.V. Kakade
Mr. V.V. Purwant for the petitioners, Ms. Shubhada Dhamale for the Respondent No.1, Mr. I.S. Thakur, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2
Shri Madhukar Pandurang Metkar, Shri Rajesh Madhukar Metkar, Shri Dilip Madhukar Metkar, Shri Prakash Bhaurao Thorat, Shri Arun Shankar Khairnar, Shri Vijay Madhukar Metkar, Shri Ambadas Trimbak Ahirao
Shri Omprakash Tarachand Patel, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging revisional order passed without hearing the original complainants.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the revisional order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Addl. II Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2005.
Filing Reason
The revisional court set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 4.1.2005 without hearing the petitioners, who were the original complainants.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 4.1.2005 in favor of the petitioners. The revisional court set aside that order on 10.2.2005 without hearing the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the revisional court could set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without hearing the original complainants who were the petitioners before the High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the revisional court set aside the order without hearing them, despite being the complainants in the original proceeding. The respondent No.1 did not join them as parties to the revision application despite full knowledge.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court ought to have heard the original complainants before setting aside the order passed on their complaint, as they were necessary parties to the revision application and would be adversely affected by the order. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Undisputedly, by the impugned order, the revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 4.1.2005 without hearing the petitioner and without joining the petitioners as parties to the proceedings.
We have also perused the report which was called for from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and in the said report the learned Judge has also confirmed the fact that the original complainant was required to be heard in the matter and it was not brought to his notice by the respondent No.1 while disposing of the revision application.
Procedural History
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 4.1.2005 in favor of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2005 before the Addl. II Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Nasik, who set aside the order on 10.2.2005 without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 724 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court challenging the revisional order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 401
