Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Accused’s Right to Be Heard in Revision Petition Upheld: P&H High Court Sets Aside Dismissal Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment dated November 20, 2023, reaffirmed the right of the accused to be heard in a revision petition filed by the complainant. The court set aside an earlier dismissal order and directed a fresh examination of the case after hearing the accused.

The case, Harinder Singh vs. Rajinder Singh, revolved around the dismissal of a criminal complaint under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint had been initially dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant. Subsequently, the Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, had set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, all without hearing the petitioner-accused.

The crucial legal point addressed in the judgment was the interpretation of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The court cited the precedent set in ‘Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another versus Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 689,’ to establish that the accused have a right to be heard in a revision petition filed by the complainant when challenging the dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate.

The High Court, in its observation, stated, “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 a crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court.”

The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring due process and the right to be heard for the accused, even in cases where a complaint has been dismissed. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the Sessions Judge was directed to reexamine the matter after affording the accused an opportunity to present their case.

Date of Decision: 20 November 2023

Harinder Singh VS Rajinder Singh

Latest Legal News