Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 18-06-2020 in case of petitioner name Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh vs Satish Atmaram Talekar & Other
| |

Supreme Court Ruling on Criminal Revision and Right to Be Heard Under CrPC

The case of Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar & Others dealt with the procedural rights of an accused in a criminal revision petition, particularly under Sections 203, 156(3), 398, and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court had to decide whether an accused had the right to be heard when a revision court overturns the dismissal of a complaint and orders further inquiry.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Satish Atmaram Talekar, had filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 114, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Magistrate directed the police to investigate, but the police report concluded that the allegations were false.

The respondent then filed a protest petition, urging the Magistrate to take cognizance. However, the Magistrate was not satisfied and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. The respondent challenged this dismissal in a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for further inquiry.

The accused, Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh, challenged the revision order before the High Court, arguing that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Additional Sessions Judge passed the order remanding the case. The High Court refused to interfere, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, represented by counsel, made the following submissions:

  • The order of the Additional Sessions Judge was passed without issuing notice to the accused, violating Sections 399 and 401(2) CrPC, which require an opportunity for the accused to be heard before an adverse order is passed.
  • The remand order effectively restored the complaint, prejudicing the petitioner without his participation in the proceedings.
  • The High Court erred in holding that no opportunity of hearing was required under Section 398 CrPC when further inquiry was directed.
  • The ruling in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel (2012) established that an accused has a right to be heard in a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent countered with the following arguments:

  • The dismissal of the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage does not vest any rights in the accused.
  • The Magistrate had merely rejected an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which did not require hearing the accused at the revision stage.
  • The accused had no role until the process was issued under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the procedural framework under CrPC and made the following key observations:

  • “The right to be heard at the stage of revision is fundamental when an order adverse to the accused is passed.”
  • “If a complaint is dismissed under Section 203 CrPC and the complainant files a revision, the accused must be given notice.”
  • “The Additional Sessions Judge exercised revisional jurisdiction in a manner that effectively restored the complaint, prejudicing the accused.”
  • “The High Court erred in holding that no hearing was required under Section 398 CrPC.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and issued the following directives:

  • The orders dated March 6, 2009, and October 8, 2007, were set aside as unsustainable.
  • The matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, to hear the revision afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner.
  • The revision application must be decided with a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications:

  • Accused’s Right to Be Heard: The judgment clarifies that an accused has the right to be heard in a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint.
  • Revisional Jurisdiction: Courts must ensure procedural fairness before directing further inquiry.
  • Protection Against Prejudice: The ruling prevents situations where an accused is subjected to proceedings without their knowledge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces fundamental procedural rights under CrPC. By ensuring that an accused is given an opportunity to be heard before a complaint is revived, the judgment upholds principles of natural justice and fair trial.


Petitioner Name: Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh.
Respondent Name: Satish Atmaram Talekar & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Navin Sinha, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 18-06-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Subhash Sahebrao Des vs Satish Atmaram Talek Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-06-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts