U.C.DHYANI, J. - (1.) THE applicants, by means of present applications / petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash and set aside impugned charge -sheet and summoning order dated 10.01.2011, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, in criminal case no. 8 of 2011, State vs Mayank Kukreti and others, relating to police station, Raipur, District Dehradun, under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the selfsame court.
(2.) AN application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation of the case was filed by Smt. Mrinal Kukreti (respondent no. 2 herein) against Captain Mayank Kukreti and his family members. Learned Special Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, vide order dated 24.02.2010, dismissed such an application holding that no offence under any of the Sections, viz., 498A, 323, 504, 506, 420 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out against the accused persons. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal revision was preferred by Smt. Mrinal Kukreti (complainant). Criminal revision was allowed. The order passed by learned Magistrate on 24.02.2010 was set aside. Learned Magistrate was directed to proceed further as per the observations made by learned revisional court. Such an order was passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV, Dehradun on 27.08.2010. Thereafter, Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, passed an order on 31.08.2010. Application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by Smt. Mrinal Kukreti was allowed. Inspector of police station, Raipur was directed to register the case and investigate the same. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against Mayank Kukreti, Pushpa Kukreti, Manish Kukreti, Pooja Tripathi and Nitin Tripathi on 04.09.2010, under Sections 420, 498A, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against Captain Mayank Kukreti and his mother Smt. Pushpa Kukreti (applicants herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken on said charge -sheet and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were filed separately by the applicants.
(3.) THE sole question for consideration, therefore, is whether a suspect is entitled to hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the accused persons? Hon'ble Apex court considered the same in a catena of decisions including Chandra Deo Singh vs Prakash Chandra Bose and another, 1964 1 SCR 639; Vadilal Panchal vs Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and another, 1961 1 SCR 1; P. Sundarrajan and others vs R. Vidhya Sekar, 2004 13 SCC 472; A.N. Santhanam vs K E and langovan, 2011 2 JCC 720 and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others,2013 1 NCC 168. Paragraph 58 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia's case brings down the curtain on the whole controversy. The said paragraph is being reproduced here -in -below for convenience: "58. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Sundarrajan , Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and A.N. Santhanam . We hold, as it may be, that in a revision petition preferred by 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 crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where 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 disclaiming 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 crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor they are 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." ;