CRR No. 1833 of 2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CRR No. 1833 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.07.2026 Vaibhav ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. K. Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for respondent No. 3. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 26.02.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 against the order dated 27.04.2015, passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR No. 301 dated 24.09.2012, under Section 304-A of IPC at Police Station Kudli, whereby he was summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., was allowed and the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2015, passed by the trial Court was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1833 of 2018 (O&M) -2- petitioner alleging that his father Praveen Tyagi, while discharging his duties in Electricity Department, suffered a fatal electric shock at the power house due to the negligence by concerned Foreman and Junior Engineer. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The police, after investigation, presented the challan only against respondent No.3, whereas respondent No 2 was found innocent and was not sent up for trial. 3. During the course of trial, the complainant appeared as witness and thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved seeking summoning of respondent No.2. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 27.04.2015. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 filed a revision petition against the said order which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner/complainant has filed the present petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned revisional Court had gravely erred in allowing the aforesaid revision petition. It is argued that the petitioner/complainant had neither been impleaded as a party in the revision petition nor any notice was ever issued. It is further argued that the learned revisional Court had erroneously allowed the said petition without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petition deserves to be accepted. 5. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the learned revisional Court had rightly allowed his revision petition MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1833 of 2018 (O&M) -3- as the trial Court cannot merely summon the persons on the basis of the complaint and statement recorded by the complainant and his witnesses. There is not infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The core issue which arises for determination before this Court is whether in the criminal revision petition preferred by an accused, the complainant is required to be impleaded as a party or whether affording him an opportunity of hearing would satisfy the mandate of law? For this purpose it is necessary to refer to the necessary provision of the Criminal Code of Procedure (for short ‘the Code’),which reads as follows: “401. High Court's powers of revision. (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. The position qua an accused’s right to be heard in revision petition is well settled in catena of cases. The position as to complainant’s right to be impleaded or his right to be heard in revision petition is for determination in the present petition. Section 401(2) of the Code expressly provides that no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or any other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or through pleader. Reference can be made to V. L. S. Finance Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3908 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering mandatory provisions of the Code has categorically held that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1833 of 2018 (O&M) -4- complainant has a right to be heard in revision proceedings, but such right would not elevate to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision. The Court held that the mandate of Section 401(2) of the Code is satisfied by extending an effective opportunity of hearing and the statute nowhere requires the complainant to be arrayed as a formal party to the revision petition. The provision consciously employs the expression “opportunity of being heard” and not the impleadment of party. The Court cannot read into the provision a requirement which the legislature has consciously omitted. 9. In the present case, the petitioner/complainant was not impleaded as party in the said revision petition nor was given an opportunity of being heard. Keeping in view the abovementioned position of law, it is clear that the petitioner/complainant was not mandatorily required to be impleaded as a party but an effective opportunity of being heard should have been given to petitioner in interest of justice. In view of the discussion as made above, the present petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 26.02.2018 is hereby set aside only for the aforesaid purpose. The matter is remitted to the learned revisional Court to decide the revision afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other parties in accordance with law. 28.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document