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.
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.
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,Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & 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.