Supreme Court: Accused Is Entitled to Be Heard in a Revision Petition Against Dismissal of Protest Petition

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused person has the right to be heard before a Court. It can even be a hearing of a Revision Petition against the order of dismissal of a Complaint filed against him.

Facts of the Case

The accusation against the Petitioner was of forging the Complainant’s signature. A Complaint was hence filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Post investigation, the Police submitted a report stating that the accusations were false. Thus, the Court issued a notice to the respondent complainant who moved a Protest Petition.

The Petitioner accused in the complaint case was aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to interfere with the order of the Additional Session Judges setting aside the order of the special Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing the complaint.

Respondent’s Submissions

The Complaint was under Section 156(3) CrPC and offences under Section 420, 467, 120-B, 114 and 34 of IPC. The magistrate had called for a report from the police.

It was contended that the dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC at the pre-cognizance stage does not vest any right in the accused to heard at the stage of remand in revision for further inquiry.

Findings of the Court

The Court observed that no notice was issued to the Petitioner-Accused and held that the Order passed by ASJ is unsustainable. Further, the Order of non- interference passed by the
High Court is also unsustainable.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 6.3.2009 and 8.10.2007 are unsustainable in their present form and are so set aside. The Court also rejected the Respondent’s contention under Section 156(3) CrPC. They observed that the Investigation report of the police and the accusations under them were false.

That the Magistrate did not consider it necessary to proceed under Section 173(8). He issued a notice to the complaint about why the final report by the police was not accepted. The Respondent filed a Protest Petition registered as a Complaint case. And the Magistrate, after hearing the respondent dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.

It was thus not a rejection of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC as was sought on behalf of the respondent. The appeal was hence allowed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News,InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -