31.08.2026 Sl. No.33 Ct. No.237 S.A. CRR 3383 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Radha Kankan Goswami & Ors. - vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sachit Talukdar Mr. Santu Paul Mr. Tirtharaj Ghoshal …for the petitioners Mr. Kallol Mandal Mr. Subir Ganguly Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw …for the State Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Rafikul Islam Sardar Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Mr. Sourav Sardar …for opposite party no.2 In Re: CRAN 1 of 2026 This is an application for condonation of delay of about 151 days in preferring the present application. Having regard to the averments made in the application, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the revisional application within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, CRAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. In Re: CRR 3383 of 2026 Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, on December 18, 2024, under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the said complaint, he alleged, inter alia, that he is the sole and exclusive 2 owner of a landed property. The petitioners voluntarily approached him with a view to finding a prospective purchaser for the said property. The petitioners allegedly induced him, by making false promises, to execute a power of attorney in their favour to enable them to sell the said property. The petitioners also allegedly promised to repay the entire consideration amount. Accordingly, the petitioners executed a registered power of attorney in the year 2016. Pursuant to the execution of the said power of attorney, the petitioners sold the property to certain third parties for a consideration of Rs. 22,55,000/-. However, the petitioners did not pay the sale consideration to Opposite Party No. 2. The learned Magistrate in the court below called for a report from Liluah Police Station. Upon consideration of the said police report, the learned Magistrate, by an order dated January 28, 2025, dropped the proceeding, since it appeared from the police report that the dispute was civil in nature and that a civil case was pending between the parties. Aggrieved by the said order dated January 28, 2025, Opposite Party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision Case No. 37 of 2025. The said criminal revision was taken up for hearing by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Howrah, who, by a judgment and order dated November 26, 2025, allowed the criminal revision by setting aside the order dated January 28, 2025, passed by the learned Magistrate. Although the reasoning contained in the impugned order appears to be elaborate, it does not appear that the petitioners were afforded any opportunity of hearing by the learned Additional 3 Sessions Judge. The order was passed ex parte and without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. Whether the petitioners before this Court were entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing in the disposal of the criminal revision is no longer res integra. The issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported at (2015) 6 SCC 287 (Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh). Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said judgment are quoted below: “4. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, Respondent 3 preferred Revision Petition No.460 of 2008, which was eventually heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, U.P. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after adumbrating the facts and taking note of the submissions of the revisionist, set aside the order dated 4-10-2008 and remanded the matter to the trial court with the direction that he shall hear the complaint again and pass a cognizance order according to law on the basis of merits according to the directions given in the said order. 5. Be it noted, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the counsel for Respondent 3 and the learned counsel for the State but no notice was issued to the accused persons therein. Ordinarily, we would not have adverted to the same because that lis is not the subject-matter in the appeal, but it has become imperative to do only to highlight how these kind of litigations are being dealt with and also to show the respondents had the unwarranted enthusiasm to move the courts. The order passed against the said accused persons at that time was an adverse order inasmuch as the matter was remitted. It was incumbent to hear the 4 respondents though they had not become accused persons. 6. A three-Judge Bench in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel has opined that in a case arising out of a complaint petition, when it travels to the superior court and an adverse order is passed, an opportunity of hearing has to be given. The relevant passages are reproduced hereunder : “46....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. 48. 48. In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination of complaint proceedings. 5 On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the allegations of having committed the offence have been made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 – although it is at preliminary stage – nevertheless results in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of hearing before the 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 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 the 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 the 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. 53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and A.N. Santhanam. We 6 hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the 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 the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the 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 dismissing the complaint and the complain 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 the crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process.” In view of the aforesaid legal position, and solely on the aforesaid ground, I set aside the order dated November 26, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, with a direction upon him to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as Opposite Party No. 2. 7 It is, however, submitted before this Court that in the meantime, Liluah Police Station Case No. 69 of 2026, dated February 17, 2026, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has been registered. In view of the order passed by this Court today, I set aside the said F.I.R. Needless to mention, the Investigating Agency shall act in terms of the order that may be passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge pursuant to this order. Accordingly, CRR 3383 of 2026 is allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)