Supreme Court mandates hearing for accused in revision against complaint dismissal: Subhash vs. Satish (2020) INSC 329

Date of the Judgment: June 18, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 329
Judges: Navin Sinha, J., Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a criminal revision against the dismissal of a complaint be decided without hearing the accused? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, emphasizing the necessity of hearing the accused before any order prejudicial to them is passed in a revision against the dismissal of a complaint. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Satish Atmaram Talekar (Respondent No. 1) against Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh (the Appellant) and others. The complainant alleged that his signatures were forged on blank papers, leading to him being falsely portrayed as the sole proprietor of M/s Shivam Wines, when he was actually a partner. This forgery purportedly resulted in the auction of his private property in a recovery suit filed by a bank.

Initially, the Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The police, after investigation, submitted a report stating the allegations were false. The Magistrate then issued a notice to the complainant asking why the police report should not be accepted. The complainant filed a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case. The Magistrate, after hearing the complainant, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Aggrieved by this dismissal, the complainant filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the Magistrate’s order and remanded the matter for further inquiry. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court by the accused, Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Metropolitan Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant then filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who reversed the Magistrate’s order and remanded the case for further inquiry. The High Court declined to interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge’s order, leading to the accused filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Sections 156(3), 173, 203, 399, 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

• Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police into a cognizable offense.
• Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the police report after the completion of the investigation. Section 173(2) deals with the report submitted by the police to the Magistrate.
• Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.: This section allows a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.
• Section 399 of the Cr.P.C.: This section outlines the Sessions Judge’s power of revision.
• Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C.: This section mandates that no order prejudicial to the accused shall be made in a revision unless they have had an opportunity of being heard.

The Supreme Court also considered the interplay between these sections in the context of a revision against the dismissal of a complaint.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

• The appellant argued that the Additional Sessions Judge’s order, which set aside the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the matter for further inquiry, was prejudicial to the appellant.
• The appellant contended that under Sections 399 and 401(2) of the Cr.P.C., no order could have been passed to their prejudice without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
• The appellant argued that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 398 of Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation by the Magistrate.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, 2012 (10) SCC 517, to assert that the accused has a right to be heard in a revision against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent argued that the dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. at the pre-cognizance stage does not vest any right in the accused to be heard at the stage of remand in revision for further inquiry.
• The respondent contended that merely because the Magistrate called for a police report, it does not amount to taking cognizance of the offense.
• The respondent argued that there was no dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. that would entitle the appellant to be heard in the revisional jurisdiction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the accused is entitled to be heard in a revision petition preferred by the complainant against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of natural justice and the statutory requirement of Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that no order prejudicial to the accused should be passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that a revision against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. directly impacts the accused, and therefore, they have a right to be heard. The court also relied on its earlier decision in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia to reiterate this principle. The court’s focus was on ensuring procedural fairness and protecting the rights of the accused.

Logical Reasoning

The Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge’s order, which set aside the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the matter for further inquiry, was unsustainable because it prejudiced the appellant without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the specific requirements of Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court, referring to Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia, stated:

“We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section. 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court.”

The Court further clarified:

“If the Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process.”

“The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled.”

The Court set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge to hear the revision application afresh after giving notice to the appellant.

Key Takeaways

• An accused person has the right to be heard in a revision petition filed by the complainant against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.
• Revisional courts must ensure that no order prejudicial to the accused is passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard.
• This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, to hear the revision application afresh after giving notice to the appellant and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order.

Development of Law

The judgment reiterates the principle established in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia that an accused has a right to be heard in a revision against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. It clarifies the procedure to be followed in such cases and overrules any contrary judgments by the High Courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in criminal proceedings. The Court held that an accused person has a right to be heard in a revision petition against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. This decision reinforces the protection of the rights of the accused and ensures that no prejudicial order is passed without giving them an opportunity to present their case.