Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Namdeo Dagdu Londhe, a Police Head Constable, was one of the accused in a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, Phulabai Tanaji Nanware, alleging offences under Sections 323, 342, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aashti, after examining the complainant on oath, issued process against all accused including the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, while observing that the issuance of process was erroneous, did not decide the revision on merits. Instead, he passed an order directing the petitioner to move the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for passing appropriate orders after hearing the revision petitioner against the order of issue process. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was patently illegal. The court noted that the revisional court, having taken cognizance of the revision, was duty-bound to decide it on merits. It could not abdicate its jurisdiction by directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate, especially when the Magistrate had already issued process and could not review its own order. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Additional Sessions Judge for fresh disposal of the revision application in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Powers of Revisional Court - Section 397, 401 CrPC - Revisional court cannot direct accused to approach magistrate for reconsideration of process order - The Additional Sessions Judge, after holding that issuance of process was erroneous, directed the petitioner to move the Magistrate for appropriate orders. Held that such order is patently illegal as the revisional court must decide the revision on merits and cannot abdicate its jurisdiction. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Process - Issuance of Process - Section 204 CrPC - Order issuing process can be challenged in revision - The Magistrate issued process under Sections 323, 342, 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The accused challenged it in revision. Held that the revisional court must examine the legality of the process order and pass appropriate orders, not remit the matter to the Magistrate. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge, in a criminal revision against an order issuing process, could direct the revision petitioner to approach the Magistrate for appropriate orders instead of deciding the revision on merits.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated not mentioned, and remitted the matter back to the Additional Sessions Judge for fresh disposal of the revision application in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Revisional court cannot abdicate its duty by directing accused to approach magistrate for reconsideration of process order
- Revisional court must decide revision on merits
- Order issuing process can be challenged in revision
- Magistrate cannot review its own order issuing process
