Bombay High Court Quashes FIR and Revisional Order for Violation of Accused's Right to Hearing in Pre-Process Stage Revision. Accused Entitled to Notice Under Section 401(2) CrPC When Revision Challenges Magistrate's Refusal to Direct Investigation, Following Supreme Court Precedent.

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and revisional court order.

Applicants sought quashing of FIR No.80/2017 registered at Naigaon Police Station and the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Criminal Revision No.3/2016.

The applicants were not heard by the revisional court before it directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, claiming violation of their right to hearing under Section 401(2) CrPC.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naigaon, by order dated 03.01.2015, directed inquiry under Section 203 CrPC instead of investigation under Section 156(3). The Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Criminal Revision No.3/2016, reversed that order and directed investigation under Section 156(3).

Whether the applicants were entitled to a hearing in the criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge when the Magistrate had merely directed an inquiry and no process had been issued. Whether the order passed by the Magistrate directing an inquiry was an interlocutory order and thus barred revision under Section 397(2) CrPC.

Applicants argued that the revisional order was passed without notice to them, violating Section 401(2) CrPC and the principle in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadiya v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel. Applicants contended that the Magistrate's order was interlocutory, so revision was not maintainable. Respondent No.2 argued that no hearing was required at the pre-process stage, relying on Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I. and Shri. Kiran Gokuldas Kalantry v. Dr. Priti Paul Singh Sethi.

In a revision petition filed by a complainant challenging a Magistrate's order refusing to direct investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and instead directing an inquiry, the persons named as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard under Section 401(2) CrPC, even though no process has been issued. Failure to provide such hearing vitiates the revisional order and any subsequent action based on it.

In our view, the dispute is no more res integra in view of the decision of the larger bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai (Supra). We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code ... the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. However, even this aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai while considering the decision of two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha (Supra) in which case the facts were similar to the case in hand.

Respondent No.2 filed complaint Misc. Criminal Application No.107/2014 before JMFC Naigaon alleging forgery of Will, etc. Magistrate by order dated 03.01.2015 directed inquiry under Section 203 CrPC instead of investigation under Section 156(3). Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Revision No.03/2016 before Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli. The revisional court on 02.05.2017, without notice to accused, allowed revision and directed investigation under Section 156(3) by SDPO Biloli. FIR No.80/2017 registered on 10.06.2017. Applicants filed present application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and revisional order.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482, Section 401, Section 397, Section 156(3), Section 203, Section 202, Section 200, Section 204
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 107, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 420, 468, 471