Rameshan P.O. &
Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Yadav & ANR. [2009] INSC 794 (17 April 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1482 of 2007) Rameshan P.O. and Ors.
...Appellants Versus Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. ...Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court who allowed the application filed in terms of Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
`Code') assailing the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The
primary stand taken in this appeal is that the revision petition was allowed
and disposed of even without issuance of notice to the present appellants.
3.
Background
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellants filed
for revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur questioning correctness
of the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Single Judge held
that no person who is accused of a cognizable offence can file for revision
before registration of FIR against him since the order under Section 156(3) of
Code is an administrative order at a pre cognizance stage under Chapter XII of
Code.
4.
It
is submitted that the revision petition had been filed by the present
respondents. If the High Court was of the view that the order of learned
Sessions Judge was indefensible it ought to have granted an opportunity to the
present appellants to have their say in the matter. The learned Single Judge
closed the issues conclusively by holding that the revision petition was not
maintainable. If that was the view the learned Single Judge ought to have given
a notice to the present appellants to show that the revision was maintainable.
By disposing of the application without issuance of notice to the present
appellants, they are prejudiced and the impugned order cannot be sustained in
law.
5.
Learned
counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that at the cognizance
stage no notice need be given to the accused. Since the order was passed in
favour of the present appellants, same ought not to have been set aside without
issuance of notice to them.
6.
In
the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the
High Court. Let the parties appear without further notice on 22.4.2009. We make
it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Until the
disposal of the matter by the High Court the proceedings before the trial Court
shall remain stayed.
7.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
........................................J.
Back
