REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    760      OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1482 of 2007)

Rameshan P.O. and Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is  to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of  the Allahabad High Court  who allowed the application filed in

terms  of  Section  397  read  with  Section  401  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) assailing the order passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The primary stand taken in this appeal is that  the

revision  petition was allowed  and disposed of  even without  issuance  of

notice to the present appellants.  

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellants filed for revision before  the learned Sessions Judge,

Jaunpur questioning correctness of the order passed under Section  156(3)

of the Code. Learned Single Judge held that no person who is accused of a

cognizable  offence can file for revision before  registration of FIR against

him since the order  under Section  156(3) of   Code is  an administrative

order at a pre cognizance stage under Chapter XII of Code.   

4. It is submitted that the revision petition had been filed by the present

respondents.  If the High Court was of the view  that the order of learned

Sessions Judge was indefensible  it ought to have granted an opportunity to

the present appellants  to have their say in the matter.  The learned Single

Judge  closed the issues  conclusively by holding  that the revision petition

was not maintainable. If that was the view  the learned Single Judge ought

to have given a notice to the present appellants to show  that the revision

was  maintainable.   By  disposing  of  the  application  without  issuance  of

2

notice to the present appellants, they are prejudiced and the impugned order

cannot be sustained in law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents  on the other hand submitted that

at the cognizance stage  no notice need  be given to the accused.  Since the

order was passed in favour of the present  appellants, same  ought not to

have been set aside without issuance of notice to them.  

6. In the circumstances,  we set aside the impugned order and remit the

matter to the High Court. Let the parties appear without further notice on

22.4.2009.  We make  it  clear  that  we  have  expressed  no  opinion  on  the

merits of the case.  Until the disposal of the matter by the High Court the

proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed.  

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.   

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

3

New Delhi, April 17, 2009

4