Judgment:
M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. this case the learned Magistrate accepted, the negative report, as submitted by the police in crime No. 44/86 under Section 454, 147, 148 and 323 IPC PS: Churu. Dilip Kumar, who was the informant in the present case, preferred a revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C. against the order of the learned Magistrate. By his impugned order the Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu accepted his petition and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate with the direction that since their existed prima facie evidence for taking cognizance for the aforementioned offences and summoning the petitioners as accused thereof, he should pass necessary orders in that behalf.
2. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could have certainly revised the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 397 Cr. P.C. but he should not have passed such orders without hearing the petitioners and also should not have expressed his opinion over the merits of the commission of the offences, alleged to have been committed in this case, and to have directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of such offences. In support of his contention, the learned Magistrate has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1991) RCC 619 and Dr. S.M. Gupta and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1992 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 651.
3. Ordinarily, a person, unless he has been summoned as an accused in a case, has no locus standi in that case and cannot claim a right of hearing and participation in the proceedings of the case. However, the principle of natural justice at the revisional stage demand that before passing an order adverse to him the revisional Court should hear him. That is the ratio of the decision in the case of Kishan Lal. Such view appears to have been taken on the study of several decisions of the Supreme Court mainly V.C. Shukha and Ors. v. Delhi Administration 1980 Suppl. SCC 249 where the Apex Court, inter alia, observed that 'No one suggests that it is unfair to launch criminal prosecution without first hearing of the accused'. In the case of A.K. v. yas and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1987(4) SCC 57, the Apex Court appears to have clarified that if the revisional Court, after exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 wants to pass an order to the prejudice of such a person, it is necessary that the person should be given an opportunity of hearing but it does not contemplate any contingency of hearing of any person who is neither party in the proceeding in the court below nor is accepted at any stage even after the revision to be joined as a party. Since the revision petition was heard by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 397 read with Section 400 though not under Section 401 Cr. P.C., the above observations of the Apex Court may very-well be attracted to the present case. Since the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance of any offence and summoned the present petitioners as accused in the case, the informant Dilip Singh might not have thought it necessary to implead the petitioners as party to his petition. Nor the Court of Additional Sessions Judge might have thought it necessary to call the present petitioners before passing the impugned order, though in the way and in the manner, he passed the impugned order, he was expected to have heard the petitioners in the matter before passing the impugned order. In any case and under the circumstances attending on the commission of the offences, in the present case, I would like to fall in line with views expressed in the case of Kishan Lal (supra).
4. In the case of Dr. S.M. Gupta and Ors. (supra) this Court had observed that in exercising revisional powers the revisional Court, particularly this Court under Section 398, may direct further enquiry into the matter instead of directing directly the Magistrate to take cognizance of any particular offence. Following with respect the view expressed in this case I hold that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have directed the learned Addl. Magistrate to take congnizance of certain offence against the petitioners. He should have directed further enquiry into the case if he was of the opinion that the case necessitated such further inquiry.
5. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted at bar that he would feel contended if the directions as pointed out above and mentioned in the impugned order be removed from the impugned order. The prayer is quite reasonable.
6. In the result the impugned order is modified to the effect and extent that the directions given to the Magistrate to take cognizance against the petitioners are hereby set aside. Instead the learned Magistrate is directed to conduct further inquiry into the case and then to pass appropriate orders according to law. In passing his orders, the learned Magistrate is expected to keep in mind that the offence in this case is alleged to have been committed in the year 1986. He would further keep in mind the ratio diecidendi of the decision of the Apex Court in case of 'Common Cause v. Union of India.'
7. The petition is disposed of in the manner stated above.