2020 INSC 0363
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2183 OF 2011
SUBHASH SAHEBRAO DESHMUKH        ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SATISH ATMARAM TALEKAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT 
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The petitioner, an accused in the complaint case, is aggrieved
by   the   refusal   of   the   High   court   to   interfere   with   the   order   of   the
Additional   Sessions   Judge,   setting   aside   the   order   of   the   Special
Metropolitan   Magistrate,     dismissing   the   complaint   under   Section
203   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
"the Cr.P.C.”)
1

2.  Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   respondent
no.l filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging offences
under   Sections   420,   467,   468,   120­B,   114   and   34   of   the   Indian
Penal Code. The Magistrate called for a report from the police.   The
police, after investigation submitted report that the allegations were
false. Notice was issued to the complainant, who then filed a protest
petition   seeking   an   order   of   cognizance   and   issuance   of   process.
The Magistrate, after hearing the respondent and not being satisfied
dismissed   the   complaint.     Aggrieved,   the   complainant   preferred   a
criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge in which the
appellant   was   impleaded   as   a   party   respondent.     No   notice   was
issued to the appellant.     The revision application was allowed and
the matter remanded to the Magistrate.  Relying upon Sections 399
and 401(2)   Cr.P.C, it was submitted that no order to the prejudice
of the appellant could have been passed without hearing  him after
dismissal of the complaint.  The Additional Sessions Judge erred in
passing   the   remand   order   in   exercise   of   revisional   jurisdiction
placing   reliance   on   Section   398   Cr.P.C.   to   direct   further
2

investigation   by   the   Magistrate.     The   High   Court   further   erred   in
holding that no opportunity  of hearing  was required under  Section
398   Cr.P.C.   if   the   direction   for   further   inquiry   was   being   passed
after   dismissal   of   the   complaint   as   opposed   to   a   discharge.
Effectively,   the   complaint   case   was   therefore   restored   to   the
prejudice   of   the   appellant.     Reliance   was   placed   on   Manharibhai
Muljibhai   Kakadia   and   another   vs.   Shaileshbhai   Mohanbhai
Patel and others , 2012 (10) SCC 517.
3. Learned   counsel   for   respondent   no.l   submitted   that   the
dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) 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.     Merely
because the  Magistrate  may  have  called  for  a police  report, it  does
not tantamount to taking cognizance.  There has been no dismissal
of the complaint under  Section 203 Cr.P.C., entitling the appellant
to be heard in the revisional jurisdiction.
3

4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
The complaint filed by respondent no.1 before the Magistrate under
Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C.   alleged   that   by   cheating   and   forging   his
signatures   on   blank   papers,   he   had   been   shown   as   the   sole
proprietor of M/s Shivam Wines, when in fact he was a partner and
his   resignation   from   the   partnership   had   also   been   forged.
Consequentially,   in   the   recovery   suit   filed   by   the   Bank   leading   to
the   grant   of   recovery   certificate,   his   private   property   came   to   be
auctioned.
5. The   Magistrate,   under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C.   directed   the
police   to   register   a   criminal   case,   investigate   and   submit   police
report in 90 days. The police after investigation submitted a report
dated   05.04.2006   under   Section   173(2)   that   the   accusations   were
false.     The   Magistrate   did   not   consider   it   necessary   to   proceed
under   Section   173(8)   and   issued   notice   to   the   complainant   as   to
why the final report by the police be not accepted.   The respondent
filed   a   protest   petition   which   was   registered   as   a   complaint   case.
4

The   Magistrate,   after   hearing   the   respondent,   and   not   being
satisfied,   dismissed   the   complaint   under   Section   203   Cr.P.C.   on
13.07.2006.  It was therefore not a rejection of an application under
Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C.   as   was   sought   to   be   urged   on   behalf   of   the
respondent.   The Additional Sessions Judge, in a revision preferred
by the respondent against the dismissal of his complaint, set aside
the   dismissal   order   on   08.10.2007,   effectively   restoring   the
complaint case arising out of a protest petition and directed further
inquiry by the Magistrate.  The High Court declined to interfere with
the order.
6. In   B.   Chandrika   vs.   Santhosh ,   (2014)   13   SCC   699,   this
Court observed as follows:
“5. The power of the Magistrate to take cognizance
of   an   offence   on   a   complaint   or   a   protest   petition
on   the   same   or   similar   allegations   even   after
accepting the final report, cannot be disputed. It is
settled law that when a complaint is filed and sent
to police under Section 156(3) for investigation and
then a protest petition is filed, the Magistrate after
accepting   the   final   report   of   the   police   under
Section   173   and   discharging   the   accused   persons
has   the   power   to   deal   with   the   protest   petition.
However,   the   protest   petition   has   to   satisfy   the
5

ingredients   of   complaint   before   the   Magistrate
takes cognizance under Section 190(1)( a ) CrPC.”
7.  The   restoration   of   the   complaint   by   the   Additional   Sessions
Judge was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the appellant.  The right
of   the   appellant   to   be   heard   at   this   stage   need   not   detain   us   any
further in view of  Manharibhai  (supra) observing as follows:
“53..  .   .   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.   In   other   words,   where   the
complaint   has   been   dismissed   by   the   Magistrate
under   Section   203   of   the   Code,   upon   challenge   to
the   legality   of   the   said   order   being   laid   by   the
complainant   in   a   revision   petition   before   the   High
Court  or  the  Sessions  Judge, the  persons  who  are
arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right
to   be   heard   in   such   revision   petition.   This   is   a
plain  requirement  of Section  401(2) of the Code. 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
6

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.  We  answer
the   question   accordingly.   The   judgments   of   the
High Courts to the contrary are overruled.”
8.  The   impugned   orders   dated   6.03.2009   and   08.10.2007   are
held to be unsustainable in their present form.   They are therefore
set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Mumbai to hear the revision application afresh after notice
to the appellant also and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking
order to his satisfaction.  The appeal is allowed.
…….………………………..J.
   (NAVIN SINHA)  
……………………………….J.
  (INDIRA BANERJEE)
New Delhi,
June 18, 2020
7