Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41839 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VIRENDRA KUMAR PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI SHRILAL
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVERNMENT JOB H.NO. 4564/1 BACK SIDE OF THE
SANTOSH KIRANA STORES NEAR BADE HANUMAN
MANDIR SHIV NAGAR ADHARTAL DISTRICT
JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY DR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION ADHARTAL DISTRICT
JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SHILPA PANDEY W/O VIRENDRA PANDEY
D/O VISHNUDATT PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, R/O 589 NEAR RAM MANDIR, VILLAGE
AND POST OFFICE BARMANKALA, POLICE
STATION SUATALA, TEHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VISHNUDATT DUBEY S/O LATE REVASHANKAR
DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O 589 NEAR RAM MANDIR,
VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARMANKALA,
POLICE STATION SUATALA, TEHSIL KARELI,
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. MADHUBALA DUBEY W/O VISHNUDATT
DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 589 NEAR
RAM MANDIR, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
BARMANKALA, POLICE STATION SUATALA,
TEHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHIVANG DUBEY S/O VISHNUDATT DUBEY, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 5/28/2024
11:01:15 AM
2
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 589
NEAR RAM MANDIR, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
BARMANKALA, POLICE STATION SUATALA,
TEHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. ANOOP CHATURVEDI S/O DIVAKARDATT
CHATURVEDI R/O NEAR JAIN ATTA CHAKKI,
GANDHI CHOWK, JAI PRAKASH NAGAR,
ADHARTAL DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SHIVANI CHATURVEDI W/O ANOOP CHATURVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NEAR JAIN ATTA
CHAKKI, GANDHI CHOWK, JAI PRAKASH NAGAR,
ADHARTAL DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
(RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 7 BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI -
ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises out of order dated 8.7.2022 passed by XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 523/2019.
2 . It is contended by the counsel for petitioner that a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the present petitioner before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and cognizance of the said complaint was taken cognizance of by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.4.2019. Assailing the order passed by the Trial Court, a Criminal Revision was preferred by the respondents. The Revisional Court though issued notices to the present petitioner but the notices were never served upon the petitioner, which is evident Signature Not Verified from the order sheets which have been brought on record vide Annexure A/3 Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 5/28/2024 11:01:15 AM 3 and thereafter the Revisional Court proceeded to pass final order dated 8.7.2022 by which, the order impugned dated 10.4.2019 passed by the Trial Court as regards taking cognizance of the complaint has been set aside.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Revisional Court in one of the interlocutory orders dated 8.7.2022 had referred to Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and concluded that in terms of Section 403 Cr.P.C it is the option with the Revisional Court to hear or not to hear the parties and such option was exercised by the Revisional Court in the present case, whereas in the present case in terms of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C, opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner was imperative inasmuch as complaint was moved by the present petitioner. Hence the order dated 8.7.2022 being unsustainable deserves to be set aside and quashed.
4. Per contra Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 has supported the order submitted that the Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order.
5. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 6 . A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the Revisional Court, while dealing with the Revision which was preferred by the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 against the order dated 10.4.2019 which was passed by the Trial Court as regards the cognizance, proceeded the present petitioner ex parte while observing that in terms of Section 403 Cr.P.C petitioner was not required to be heard, has passed the impugned order. In the considered view of this Court, it escaped the notice of Trial Court that Section 403 Cr.P.C only comes in operation in the matters which are not otherwise expressly provided by the Code. Section 403 Cr.P.C is reproduced herein-below.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 5/28/2024 11:01:15 AM 4" 4 0 3 Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its powers of revision; but the Court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader"
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that powers under Section 403 cannot be exercised where the cases are covered under Section 401 (2) of Cr.P.C and as per Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. it was incumbent upon the Revisional Court to hear the present petitioner.
8 . Thus, in view of the aforesaid provision this Court is of the considered view that the Revisional Court committed grave error while passing the impugned order.
9. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed. Impugned order dated 8.7.2022 in Case No. Cr.R No. 523/2019 stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court with a direction to decide the Revision afresh while extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein. Let a decision afresh in terms of this order be taken within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards merit of the case.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE VKT Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 5/28/2024 11:01:15 AM