- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M. Thulasidass v. K. Govindaraju
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Coimbatore, alleging offences under Sections 397 and 398, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate considered the complaint and held that it did not disclose the commission of any offence, dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The complainant (respondent) challenged that order by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (Crl. Rev. Petition No. 56 of 1993). While that revision was pending, the accused (petitioner in the present revision) sought permission from the Sessions Judge to enter appearance and defend the revision; the Sessions Judge dismissed that petition. The present revision challenges the Sessions Judge's dismissal of the petition for leave to enter appearance. After the court considered the matter, learned counsel for the revision petitioner informed the court that he was not pressing the revision and wished to withdraw it; accordingly, the revision was dismissed as not pressed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in a revision against an order under Section 203, Cr.P.C. (dismissing a complaint as not disclosing an offence and before issuance of process), the accused must be permitted to enter appearance and be heard in the revision proceedings.
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred in refusing the accused's petition for permission to defend the revision when the accused had not been summoned because the magistrate had dismissed the complaint at the pre-process stage.
Arguments of the Parties
Revision Petitioner (accused)
- The accused asserted a right to answer the allegations made in the complaint and to defend the revision proceeding pending before the Sessions Judge.
- The accused contended that his fundamental right to defend proceedings entitled him to enter appearance and submit arguments in the revision; if the revision were allowed, he would then be given an opportunity to answer charges and regular proceedings would follow in accordance with law.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the procedural posture: the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complaint did not prima facie disclose a commission of any offence, and this dismissal occurred before any process was issued and when the accused was not before the Magistrate. The court treated the revision before the Sessions Judge as standing at the same stage — i.e., the question in the revision was whether process should be issued against the accused. Because the magistrate's order was passed at a pre-process stage without summoning the accused, the court concluded that the accused was not entitled, at that stage of the revision, to be heard by entering appearance and arguing the matter. The Sessions Judge's dismissal of the petition seeking permission for the accused to enter appearance and defend the revision was held to be correct, as there was no requirement to hear the accused when he had not been summoned and the stage for issuing process had not been reached. The court found no illegality in the Sessions Judge's order and held the petition liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated he was not pressing the revision; on that basis the revision was dismissed as not pressed.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court upheld the Sessions Judge's refusal to permit the accused to enter appearance and defend the revision at the pre-process stage and found no illegality in that order. The petition was dismissed at the admission stage, and the revision was ultimately dismissed as not pressed.
Implications: The direct effect is that an accused who has not been summoned because a Magistrate has dismissed a complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. need not be heard in a revision challenging that dismissal at the stage before issuance of process. The opinion does not discuss broader precedential effects beyond the immediate dismissal and does not purport to establish a new legal principle.
This revision is against the order of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.M.P No. 152 of 1994 in Crl. Revision Petition No. 56 of 1993. The respondent herein had filed a complaint against this petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Coimbatore for offences under Sections 397 and 398, I.P.C and the learned Magistrate after considering the complaint, has found that the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence and, dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C As against this order, the complainant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 56 of 1993. When the revision is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner herein who is the accused in the complaint filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge seeking permission to defend the revision on the ground that he being the accused in the complaint, has got right to defend the revision and, therefore he must be given an opportunity to submit his arguments. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition and hence the revision is filed against the order of the Sessions Judge.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that when the respondent herein has leveled accusations against the petitioner in his complaint and that matter is now pending before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has every right to answer to the allegations in the complaint and, therefore he had to defend the revision and sought for permission of the learned Sessions Judge, who rejected his request and therefore the order of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal.
3. The order has been passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203, Cr.P.C holding that prima facie the complaint did not disclose any commission of offence and on mere suspicion, the complainant come forward with the complaint. While passing the order under Section 203, Cr.P.C the accused petitioner herein was not before the court and process also was not issued. Therefore, even before the stage had reached, for issue of a process to the accused, the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203, Cr.P.C while so before the learned Sessions Judge also the same stage continues and the question is whether the process has to be issued against the accused or not ? when the order has been passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C without hearing the accused, in the revision against that order also I feel that the accused person need not be heard because he has not been summoned to the court. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the Constitution has guaranteed his fundamental right to defend the proceedings and as this is a revision against the accused person, the accused has got every right to enter appearance and defend the revision. Assuming that the revision is allowed opportunity will be given to the accused petitioner to answer the charges and the regular proceedings will go according to law. Therefore, now the stage is whether the process has to be issued to the accused or not. As the stage has not yet reached to summon the accused, I feel that there is no need to hear the accused person and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly right in dismissing the petition of the revision petitioner seeking permission to enter appearance to hear his arguments. I find no illegality in the order and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed in the admission stage.
4. After passing this order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner represents that he is not pressing this revision and wants to withdraw the revision itself. In view of the representations of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, this revision is dismissed as not pressed.
Alert