1 CRR-2577-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CRR-2577-2018 (O&M) Reserved on: 08.07.2026 Pronounced on: 23.07.2026 Uploaded on: 23.07.2026 HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS PETITIONERS VERSUS VIR BHAN PAUL RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kanwar Harjinder Singh, Advocate and Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. 1. The revision petition assails order dated 24.01.2018 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and subsequent order dated 01.06.2018 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh. 2. Criminal Complaint No.32 of 2007 titled ‘Vir Bhan Paul Vs. Harjinder Singh and Others’ under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC was filed by the respondent against the petitioners before learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh on 29.07.2009. Preliminary evidence was recorded therein and on 23.09.2014, the complaint was dismissed by learned Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Assandh finding no sufficient grounds to summon the petitioners. Subsequently, respondent (complainant) filed a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, wherein order dated 23.09.2014 of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was set aside vide order dated 24.01.2018, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The case was remanded back, whereafter learned HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.23 21:37 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRR-2577-2018 (O&M) Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh vide impugned order dated 01.06.2018, summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the provisions of Section 399 Cr.P.C. and Section 401 Cr.P.C. to submit that the petitioners had a statutory right to be heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal while deciding the revision petition on 24.01.2018 and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Resultantly, summoning order dated 01.06.2018 was also liable to be set aside. 4. Respondent initially appeared through Ms. Rajni Pal, Advocate on 16.11.2019 but later failed to contest the petition. 5. Although, the revision petition challenging order dated 24.01.2018 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in revision would not be maintainable, it is settled principle of law that nomenclature of a petition is immaterial and for doing substantial justice, the High Court can always convert a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and vice versa. The revision petition cannot be dismissed on the hyper-technical ground that remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to have been availed. In this view, I am fortified by observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Akanksha Arora Vs. Tanay Maben 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3688, Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (1997) 3 SCC 635. The revision petition is, therefore, treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Section 399 Cr.P.C. reads as under: “399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision.— HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.23 21:37 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRR-2577-2018 (O&M) (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High 170 Court under sub- section (1) of section 401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) ……….” 7. Further Section 401, which relates to High Court’s power of revision, is reproduced 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………” 8. In Manharbhai Muljibhai Kapadia & Another Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Others (2012) 10 SCC 517 a Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the context of a revision against an order, dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code observed as under: “48. ….by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get right of hearing before Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. The right given to "accused" or "the other person" under Section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused with the HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.23 21:37 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRR-2577-2018 (O&M) proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is pre-process stage or post process stage.” 9. In Bal Manohar Jalan Vs. Sunil Paswan (2014) 9 SCC 640, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “9. In the present case challenge is laid to the order dated 4-3-2009 at the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused mentioned in the first information report get the right of hearing before the Revisional Court although the impugned order therein was passed without their participation. The appellant who is an accused person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted.” 10. In a more recent decision in Santhakumari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2025(15) SCC 440 and Subhash Sahebrao Vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar 2020(6) SCC 625 also, the same position of law was reiterated. 11. From the record, it is manifest that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, seized of revision petition bearing No.CRR/1044/2014 dated 17.11.2014 titled ‘Vir Bhan Paul Vs. Harjinder Singh and Others’ challenging order dated 23.09.2014 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh, did not provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who were impleaded as respondents. Restoration of the complaint by learned Additional HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.23 21:37 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 CRR-2577-2018 (O&M) Sessions Judge, Karnal on the ground that the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, was to the prejudice of the petitioners, who were not afforded the right to be heard. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal decided the revision petition, without even issuing notice to the petitioners. Impugned order dated 24.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which is against statutory mandate of Sub-section (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., thus, deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Consequently, subsequent order dated 01.06.2018 of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC also does not survive. 12. The petition is allowed. Order dated 24.01.2018 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and subsequent order dated 01.06.2018 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh are hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted back to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal to hear the revision petition afresh after issuing notice to the petitioners and pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.23 21:37 I agree to specified portions of this document