Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  480      OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRIMINAL)NO.6102 OF 2012)  

M/S. PRIME IMPEX LTD. & ORS.   APPELLANTS

VERSUS

M/S. P.E.C. LTD. & ANR.                   RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court at Delhi in Criminal Revision  

Petition No.456 of 2011, dated 13.10.2011.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court  

has taken exception to the findings and conclusions reached  

by  the  learned  Addl.  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate  in  

Complaint Case No. 4060 of 2011 and accordingly, has allowed  

the petition.

4. Shri  L.  Nageswara  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants  would  submit  that  the  High  

Court, while passing the order in Revision Petition filed  

under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, had  

not afforded the opportunity of hearing to the appellants  

herein  and  submits  that  the  same  is  opposed  to  the  

principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

1

Page 2

Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another vs.  Shaileshbhai  

Mohanbhai Patel and Others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517.  

In the said decision, this Court has stated as under:

“48.  In  case  where  the  complaint  has  been  dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203  of the Code either at the stage of Section 200  itself  or  on  completion  of  inquiry  by  the  Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of  the report from the police or from any person  to  whom  the  direction  was  issued  by  the  Magistrate to investigate into the allegations  in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal  is termination of complaint proceedings.  On a  plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section  401, it cannot be said that the person against  whom the allegations of having committed the  offence have been made in the complaint and  the  complaint  has  been  dismissed  by  the  Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to  be heard because no process has been issued.  The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate  under  Section  203  –  although  it  is  at  preliminary  stage  –  nevertheless  results  in  termination  of  proceedings  in  a  complaint  against the persons who are alleged to have  committed the crime.  Once a challenge is laid  to  such  order  at  the  instance  of  the  complainant in a revision petition before the  High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of  Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get  the  right  of  hearing  before  the  Revisional  Court although such order was passed without  their  participation.  The  right  given  to  “accused” or “the other person” under Section  401(2) of being heard before the Revisional  Court to defend an order which operates in his  favour  should  not  be  confused  with  the  proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections  200,  202,  203  and  204.   In  the  revision  petition before the High Court or the Sessions  Judge  at  the  instance  of  the  complainant  challenging  the  order  of  dismissal  of  complaint, one of the things that could happen  is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and  revival of the complaint. It is in this view  of the matter that the accused or other person  cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of  the  express  provision  contained  in  Section  

2

Page 3

401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important  whether  it  is  pre-process  stage  or  post- process stage.”

5. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in  

the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the High  

Court  was  not  justified  in  passing  the  order  without  

affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the  

judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the  

matter  back  to  the  High  Court  for  fresh  disposal  in  

accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing  

to the appellants.

7. All the contentions raised by both the parties are  

left open.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

NEW DELHI; MARCH 18, 2013.  

3