Rameshan P.O. and ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Yadav and anr.

criminal - revision -maintainability of - section 156(3) of criminal procedure code (cr. pc) - appellant- appellants filed for revision of the order passed under section 156(3) of cr.p.c. against him - maintainability of the revision challenged by the respondent before high court - single judge allowed application of respondent on ground that no person who is accused of cognizable offence can file for revision before registration of first information report against him - appellants was not satisfied with order because notice of proceedings in respect of application filed by respondent was not issued to appellants - hence, present appeal - held, if high court was of view that order of sessions judge was indefensible, it ought to have granted an opportunity to appellants to have their say in matter - however, in present case, single judge closed issues conclusively by holding that revision petition was not maintainable, without providing any opportunity to appellants to present their case - thus, impugned order is not sustainable - accordingly, set aside - matter remitted back to high court for re-consideration - appeal disposed of accordingly - indian penal code, 1890. sections 397,401 & 156(3): [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar gangully,jj] revision against order passed under section 156(3) - disposal of revision petition, even without issuing notice - appeal - counter pleas as to necessity of issuance of notice to persons in whose favour said order was passed supreme court expressed no opinion on merits -remitted matter to high court. .....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 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.....