M. Thulasidass vs K. Govindaraju

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is against the order of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No. 152 of 94 in

Crl. Revision Petition No. 56 of 93. The respondent herein had filed a complaint against this petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.

6, Coimbatore, for offences under Ss. 397 and 398, IPC, and the learned Magistrate after considering the complaint, has found that the complaint

does not disclose the commission of offence and, dismissed the complaint under S. 203, Cr.P.C. As against this order, the complainant filed a

revision before the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 56 of 93. When the revision was pending before the learned Sessions

Judge, the petitioner herein who is the accused in the complaint filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge seeking permission to defend the

revision on the ground that he being the accused in the complaint, has got right to defend the revision and, therefore, he must be given an

opportunity to submit his arguments. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition and hence the revision is filed against the order of the

Sessions Judge.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that when the respondent herein has levelled accusations against the

petitioner in his complaint and that matter is now pending before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has every right to answer to the allegations in the

complaint and, therefore, he had to defend the revision and sought for permission of the learned Sessions Judge, who rejected his request and

therefore the order of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal.

The order has been passed by the learned Magistrate under S. 203, Cr.P.C. holding that prima facie the complaint did not disclose any

commission of offence and on mere suspicion, the complainant came forward with the complaint. While passing the order under S. 203, Cr.P.C.,

the accused/petitioner herein was not before the court and process also was not issued. Therefore, even before the stage had reached, for issue of

a process to the accused, the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate under S. 203, Cr.P.C. while so, before the learned Sessions Judge

also, the same stage continues and the question is whether the process has to be issued against the accused or not ? When the order has been

passed under S. 203, Cr.P.C., without hearing the accused, in the revision against that order also, I feel that the accused person need not be heard

because he has not been summoned to the Court. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the Constitution has guaranteed his

fundamental right to defend the proceedings and as this is a revision against the accused person, the accused has got every right to enter

appearance, and defend the revision. Assuming that the revision is allowed, opportunity will be given to the accused petitioner to answer the

charges and the regular proceedings will go according to law. Therefore, now the stage is whether the process has to be issued to the accused or

not. As the stage has not yet reached to summon the accused, I feel that there is no need to hear the accused person and therefore, the learned

Sessions Judge was perfectly right in dismissing the petition of the revision petitioner, seeking permission to enter appearance to hear his

arguments. I find no illegality in the order and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed in the admission stage.

After passing this order, the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner represents that he is not pressing this revision and wants to withdraw the

revision itself. In view of the representation of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, this revision is dismissed as not pressed.

Revision dismissed.