Rajnarain Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Palok Basu, J.—Heard Sri N.N. Singh learned Counsel for the applicant at length.

The Magistrate had dismissed a complaint by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The argument of Mr. Singh is that since the order may be treated as likely to be prejudicial to the accused, therefore, he had a right to be heard in the revision that was preferred by the complainant against the said order of dismissal. In support of his argument he has relied upon the case reported in 1982 CriLJ 1342 . I am afraid the said argument is wholly misconceived. We may refer at this stage to the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and Another, . It has been held that no accused had a right or locus standi before he is summoned in a complaint case. It has further been observed in the said case that an accused can participate in the inquiry held u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. The earlier part of the said case clearly lays down that the accused has no cause of action unless he has been summoned. Under the circumstances, the accused applicant was not at all a necessary party to be heard in the revision which was preferred by the complainant against the dismissal of his complaint u/s 203 Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.