- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A.N Santhanam v. K. Elangovan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent (complainant) lodged a complaint against the appellant alleging an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After recording the statements of the complainant and five witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1045 of 2003 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court, without issuing notice to the appellant, set aside the Magistrate’s dismissal and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint. The present appeal challenges that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could set aside the Magistrate’s dismissal of a complaint without issuing notice to the appellant, thereby potentially prejudicing him contrary to Section 401(2).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court erred in deciding the criminal revision without serving notice on the appellant, violating the mandatory requirement of Section 401(2) CrPC.
Respondent's Arguments
- Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 363, the respondent contended that notice to the accused was not required because the matter was only at the stage of taking cognizance.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 363 | Proposition that notice to the accused is not obligatory when the court is merely considering whether to take cognizance of a complaint. | The Supreme Court distinguished the precedent, observing that it dealt with a situation where the complaint was taken cognizance, whereas the present case involved a complaint that had been rejected and was revived; therefore the precedent was inapplicable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Section 401(2) CrPC, which explicitly prohibits the High Court from passing an order “to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard.” The Court found that the High Court’s order resurrected a dismissed complaint and directed further proceedings, thereby affecting the appellant’s rights and causing prejudice. Consequently, compliance with Section 401(2) was mandatory. The precedent cited by the respondent was held inapposite because it concerned a distinct factual scenario—consideration at the stage of taking cognizance, not revival of a dismissed complaint. Hence, the High Court’s failure to issue notice constituted a legal error.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The impugned High Court order is set aside; Criminal Revision Case No. 1045 of 2003 is restored for fresh hearing on merits after serving notice to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that, under Section 401(2) CrPC, notice to the affected party is indispensable whenever a revisional order may prejudice that party. The matter returns to the High Court, where the appellant will now have an opportunity to be heard. No new substantive precedent is created, but the ruling underscores procedural fairness in criminal revision proceedings.
Order
1. The respondent in this appeal filed complaint against the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dismissed the complaint after recording the statement of the complainant and as well as of five witnesses.
2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the respondent herein had filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1045 of 2003 in the High Court of Madras. The High Court, upon appreciation of material available on record, found that the complaint filed by the respondent and the statements of the witnesses clearly make out a case against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and accordingly, allowed the revision duly setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint. Be it noted, the criminal revision case filed by the respondent was heard and disposed of without any notice whatsoever to the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a short question that the High Court committed an error in disposing of the criminal revision without any notice to the appellant. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the appellant before disposing of the criminal revision filed by the respondent complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relying on the judgment of this Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 363 submitted that no notice as such was required to be issued to the appellant herein since it was at the stage of taking cognizance.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with the High Court's power of revision reads as under:
“401. High Court's powers of revision.—(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.”
A plain reading of sub-section (2) of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot pass any order which may cause prejudice to the accused or other persons unless he has an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
6. In the instant case it cannot be said that the rights of the appellant have not been affected by the order of revision. The complaint filed by the respondent which was rejected for whatsoever reasons has been resurrected with a direction to the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint. Undoubtedly, whether the appellant herein was an accused or not but his right has been affected and the impugned order has resulted in causing prejudice to him.
7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent has no application whatsoever to the fact situation. In fact the decision (2009) 2 SCC 363 of this Court was in a case where the complaint was taken cognizance and not a case where the complaint was rejected. In the circumstances, we hold that the High Court committed an error in allowing the revision filed by the respondent herein without any notice to the appellant.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case No. 1045 of 2003 shall stand restored to its file for hearing and disposal on merits after notice to the appellant herein. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case and as to whether the complaint reveals commission of any offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. The same shall be gone into by the High Court on its own merits uninfluenced by the observation, if any, made in this order. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Alert