Page 1

1

  REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1247   OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5826 of 2011]

Bal Manohar Jalan           …     Appellant(s)  

versus

Sunil Paswan and another               …     Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the impugned order  

dated 18.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2009 whereby the High  

Court allowed the Criminal Revision filed by the respondent  

No.1 herein.    3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present  

appeal are stated as follows: The father of the respondent

Page 2

2

No.1  herein  filed  a  complaint  on  24.5.2003  against  five  

accused persons alleging therein that they had committed  

murder of son of the complainant by name Anil Paswan by  

administering  poison.   A  case  was  registered  in  First  

Information  Report  No.96  of  2003  on  the  file  of  Chowk  

Police Station, Patna City, on 28.5.2003 against 5 accused  

persons for the alleged offences under Section 328/302/34  

IPC. During investigation, the complainant filed a protest-

cum-complaint  petition  on  7.6.2003  which  was  kept  on  

record. The investigation officer submitted the final report  

in the case on 31.5.2008 against accused No.1 Sunita Devi  

alone under  Section  328/302 IPC  for  the  murder  of  Anil  

Paswan.  The  Addl.  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Patna  City,  

perused the charge-sheet and the case diary as well as the  

protest-cum-complaint  petition  dated  7.6.2003  and  took  

cognizance  for  the  offences  under  Section  328/302  IPC  

against accused No.1 Sunita Devi and discharged accused  

Nos. 2 to 5 in the First Information Report from the case  

and  rejected  the  protest-cum-complaint  petition  filed  by

Page 3

3

the complainant by his order dated 4.3.2009.  Aggrieved  

by the rejection of the protest-cum-complaint petition Sunil  

Paswan,  the son of  complainant late Harinandan Paswan  

filed revision petition in Criminal Revision No.830 of 2009  

on the file of the High Court of Judicature  at Patna under  

Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure.  

The High Court after hearing the revision petitioner and the  

respondent  State  set  aside   the  order  dated  4.3.2009  

passed by Addl.  Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Patna City and  

remanded the matter to the court below for proceeding in  

accordance  with  law  treating  the  protest-cum-complaint  

petition as a complaint.   Accused No.4 mentioned in the  

First Information Report Bal Manohar Jalan has challenged  

the said order of the High Court in this appeal.

4. This Court issued notice in the matter on 1.8.2011  

besides granting stay of the impugned order. Respondent  

No.1 herein namely, the revision petitioner before the High  

Court,  though served did not choose to appear either in  

person  or  through  counsel  before  this  Court  and  that

Page 4

4

necessitated  us  to  appoint  Mr.  S.B.  Upadhyay,  Senior  

Advocate as Amicus Curiae for respondent No.1 to assist  

the Court,  by order dated 7.4.2014 and both sides were  

heard on 2.5.2014.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the  

appellant  is  that  though  Section  401(2)  of  the  Criminal  

Procedure Code stipulated that no order in exercise of the  

power to revision shall be made by the High Court to the  

prejudice of the accused unless he had an opportunity of  

being  heard  either  personally  or  by  pleader  in  his  own  

defence, the High Court in criminal revision did not issue  

notice to the appellant herein who is accused No.4 in the  

First  Information  Report  and  without  providing  an  

opportunity to him has exercised jurisdiction under Section  

401  by  directing   to  proceed  in  accordance  with  law  

treating  the  protest  petition  as  the  complaint,  to  the  

prejudice of the appellant herein and hence the impugned  

order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.  In support  

of his submission he relied on the decision of this Court in

Page 5

5

Manharibhai  Muljibhai  Kakadia  and  another  vs.  

Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others [(2012) 10  

SCC 517].  We also heard the learned amicus curiae on the  

submissions  made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant.   

6. Admittedly  the  appellant  herein  is  mentioned  as  

accused  No.4  in  First  Information  Report  No.96  of  2003  

dated  28.5.2003.  The  father  of  respondent  No.1  herein,  

while  alive  filed  a  protest-cum-complaint  petition  dated  

7.6.2003  in  the  said  case  and  on  the  filing  of  the  final  

report,  cognizance  was taken  by  the Addl.  Chief  Judicial  

Magistrate against accused No.1 Sunita Devi alone for the  

alleged offences under Section 328 and 302 IPC and the  

other  four  accused  mentioned  in  the  First  Information  

Report  were  discharged  from the  case  and  the  protest-

cum-complaint petition was also rejected by order dated  

4.3.2009.  Since by then, the complainant was not alive,  

his  another  son  namely  Sunil  Paswan  preferred  the  

Criminal  Revision  under  Section  397  and  401  of  the

Page 6

6

Criminal  Procedure  Code  and  the  High  Court  without  

issuing  notice  to  the  concerned  accused  passed  the  

impugned order and on the ground of non-compliance  of  

the provision under Section 401 clause (2) of the Criminal  

Procedure Code resulting  in  prejudice,  the appellant  has  

preferred this appeal.

7. The right of hearing given to accused under Section  

401 clause (2) of  Criminal Procedure Code was elaborately  

dealt  with  by  this  Court  in  Manharibhai  Muljibhai  

Kakadia case (supra) and it is laid down as follows:

“46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in  the  proceedings  u/s.  202  of the  code   the  accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the  question  whether  the  process  should  be  issued  against  him or  not.  As  a matter  of  law,  upto  the  stage of  issuance of  process,  the accused cannot  claim  any  right  of  hearing.  S.  202  contemplates  postponement  of  issue  of  process  where  the  Magistrate is of an opinion that further inquiry into  the complaint either by himself is required and he  proceeds  with  the  further  inquiry  or  directs  an  investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by  such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of  deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground  for proceeding. If the Magistrate finds that there is

Page 7

7

no  sufficient  ground  for  proceeding  with  the  complaint and dismisses the complaint u/s. 203 of   the Code, the question is whether a person accused  of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing  in  a  revision  application  preferred  by  the  complainant against  the order  of  the dismissal  of  the complaint.  Parliament being alive to the legal  position that the accused/suspects are not entitled  to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until  issuance  of  process  under  Section  204,  yet  in  Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in  exercise of the power of the revision shall be made  by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case  may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other  person unless he had an opportunity of being heard  either personally or by pleader in his own defence.  

47.     xxxx       xxxx      xxxx       

48.  In  a  case  where  the  complaint  has  been  dismissed  by  the  Magistrate  u/s.  203  of the  Code either  at  the  stage  of  S.  200  itself  or  on  completion of inquiry by the Magistrate u/s. 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-s.  (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

Page 8

8

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

8. In the present case challenge is laid to order dated  

4.3.2009  at  the  instance  of  the  complainant  in  the  revision  

petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401(2)  

of  the Code,  the accused mentioned in  the First  Information

Page 9

9

Report  get  the  right  of  hearing  before  the  revisional  court  

although the impugned order therein was passed without their  

participation.  The appellant who is an accused person cannot  

be deprived of  hearing on the face of  the express provision  

contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the  

impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and  

the matter has to be remitted.

9. Though other grounds such as charge-sheet having  

been filed and the cognizance has been taken against accused  

No.1,  the  protest  petition  cannot  be  treated  as  a  complaint  

warranting an independent  inquiry,  have been raised in  this  

appeal,  we do  not  deem it  necessary  to  consider  the  same  

since we are remitting the matter for fresh consideration and it  

is open to the appellant to raise them before the High Court.

10. In the result the impugned order of the High Court  

dated 18.4.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted and the  

High Court shall issue notice to all the concerned accused and  

thereafter hear and dispose of the criminal revision petition in  

accordance with law.  This appeal is allowed accordingly.

Page 10

10

..………………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; June 30, 2014