[ 2025:JHHC:19962] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2659 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2659 of 2023 1. Umesh Singh @ Umesh Kumar Singh, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Awadh Narayan Singh, at present resident of village- Silampur, PO Maheshpur Raj, P.S.- Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 2. Ritesh Singh @ Ritesh Kumar Singh @ Jitesh Kumar, aged about 32 years, Son of Umesh Singh, Resident of village-Silampur, P.O.- Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 3. Raju Pandey @ Rajesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Kshiteshwar Pandey @ Siyeshwar Nam Pandey, at present Resident of Village- Dyaa Chapra, P.O. Dyaa Chapra, P.S- Beriya, District-Baliya (Uttar Pradesh), Resident of village- Silampur, P.O.- Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur (Jharkhand) 4. Pradip Pandey @ Chunchun Pandey @ Pradip Kumar Pandey @ Chanu Pandey @Pradeep Pandey, Aged about 51 years Son of Late Kshiteshwar Pandey, Resident of Village- Dyaa Chapra, P.O.- Dyaa Chapra, P.S- Beriya, District- Baliya (Uttar Pradesh), At present resident of village Silampur, P.O. Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 5. Sitesh Singh @ Sitesh Kumar, aged about 31 years, Son of Umesh Singh Resident of village- Silampur, P.O. Maheshpur Raj, P.S.- Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 6. Shahjahan Shekh @ Sahjahan Sk., aged about 56 years, Son of Subhani Shekh, Resident of village- Silampur, P.O.-Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 7. Jalaal Shekh @ Jalaal Sk @ Jallal Sk., aged about 58 years, Son of Rahmaan Shekh, Resident of village- Silampur, P.O.- Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 8. Md. Iliyash Shekh @ Iliyas Sk @ Ilias Sk., aged about 50 years, Son of Salim Shekh, Resident of village Silampur, P.O.- Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur (Jharkhand) 9. Mohan Maal @ Mohan Mal, aged about 57 years, Son of AaKal Maal, Resident of village Silampur, P.O.- Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 10. Haroon Shekh @ Harun Sk. @ Ham Sk., aged about 61 years, Son of Jamsher Shekh, Resident of village- Silampur, P.O.-Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) [ 2025:JHHC:19962] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2659 of 2023 11. Murshed Shekh, aged about 62 years, Son of Shubhratri Shekh, Resident of village- Silampur, P.O.-Maheshpur Raj, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand). ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajab Narayan Tiwari, Son of Late Ram Sahu Tiwari @ Sahu Tiwari, at present resident of village –Silampur, P.O. and P.S.- Maheshpur, Dist.- Pakur (Jharkhand), Permanent resident of village- Bhora, P.O.- Dyaa Chapra, Dist. –Baliya (Uttar Pradesh) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Adv. For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. PP For the opp. party no.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar ,Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.07.2022 passed in Criminal Revision no. 15 of 2020, whereby and where under learned Sessions Judge, Pakur set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by learned CJM, Pakur in PCR case no. 184 of 2018 by which, learned CJM, dismissed the complaint and also to quash the subsequent order dated 01.09.2022 passed by learned CJM, Pakur in connection with the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since by dismissal of the complaint, a valuable right has accrued to the petitioner and learned Sessions Judge, Pakur ought to have issued the notice to the petitioner before exercising its revisional power in Cr. Rev. 15 of 2020 but having not done so, the impugned order is illegal and consequently order passed by learned CJM, Pakur , basing upon the said order in PCR case no. 184 of 2018 be also [ 2025:JHHC:19962] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2659 of 2023 quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517 and submits that in that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in para 46, as under- “46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. As a matter of law, up to the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing. Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process where the Magistrate is of an opinion that further inquiry into the complaint either by himself is required and he proceeds with the further inquiry or directs an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint. Parliament being alive to the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of process under Section 204, yet in Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in exercise of the power of the revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the Parliament being alive to the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of process under Section 204, yet Section 401(2) of the CrPC provided that no order in exercise of the power of the revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence, hence, the revisional court has committed grave illegality by not issuing the notice. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. [ 2025:JHHC:19962] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2659 of 2023 4. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 fairly submits that notice is required to be issued to the accused person of the case, who has been exonerated consequent upon the dismissal of the complaint but having not done so, certainly learned Sessions Judge, Pakur has committed a grave illegality. It is further submitted that otherwise also, there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offences, for which, learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case after the same was remanded by learned Sessions Judge, hence, it submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to quote here Section 401 (1) and (2) of the CrPC, which reads 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. (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the plain reading of Section 401 (2) of CrPC, makes it abundantly clear that the same mandates that no order in exercise of power of revision shall be made inter alia by the Sessions Judge, to prejudice the accused or other person, unless such person has opportunity of being heard either personally or through the pleader. 7. Now coming to the facts of this case, the undisputed fact remains that without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, who are the accused persons of the case and to whom a valuable right has accrued consequent upon the dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant, certainly deserve a notice but having not done so, certainly learned Sessions Judge, Pakur committed a grave a illegality which is not sustainable in law. [ 2025:JHHC:19962] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2659 of 2023 8. Accordingly, the order dated 02.07.2022 passed in Criminal Revision no. 15 of 2020 by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur is quashed and set aside against the petitioners and the subsequent order dated 01.09.2022 passed by learned CJM, Pakur is also quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision no. 15 of 2020 is remanded to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur to hear the same afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioners therein as well as the petitioners of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 10. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to that extent. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 17th July, 2025 Smita /AFR