Introduction:
In this case, the complainant filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners and numerous form others for the commission of an offense punishable under section 500/34 of the Indian penal code the petitioner has contested the accuracy and legality of the order learned Metropolitan Magistrate on January 15, 2013, and has also challenged the petitioner owns petition. And in this case, the facts and circumstances according to the complainant and accused corporation on May 8, 2005, and both parties were interacting with the contractual agreement.
Facts:
A business registered and established under the Companies Act of 1956 is the first respondent. It filed a complaint petition under Section 200 of the Code, along with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code, in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi at Patiala House Courts regarding an alleged offense that was committed and was norm signed between the complainant and accused coronation in May 2005 and both parties interacting with one another to the contractual agreement. The current application under 156(3) of the CRPC is denied.
Issues:
- Is the high court exercising jurisdiction under sections 397 and 401 of the code of criminal procedure?
- Whether the accused in the person of the facts and circumstances of the case questions involved in appeal arose out of judgment?
- Whether the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offense?
The contention of the Appellant:
The appellant would contend that the revision application could not have been decided without giving the appellant notice because the complaint petition was filed in accordance with Section 200 of the Code read with Section 156 (3) thereof and the learned Magistrate ordered the respondent No. 1 to produce witnesses so that it could proceed in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code.
The contention of the Respondent:
According to the contention of the respondent, Mr. Jaspal Singh, a knowledgeable senior attorney speaking on behalf of respondent No. 1, would argue that since the criminal revision application was submitted at the pre-cognizance stage, the accused does not have a right to a hearing. In this regard, there has been a significant reliance.
Judgment:
In the present case, all the facts and circumstances of the cases are within the knowledge of the complainant. According to the complaint, an MOU dated 05/08/05 was signed between the complainant and the accused company, who have been contractually dealing with one another. According to the complaint and the documents filed, there may be some disagreement between the parties regarding immovable property and the payments related to its sale. The accuser, according to the complainant, defrauded him. The complainant can lead his own evidence; thus the police are not now required to gather any evidence based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Due to this, the current application under section 156(3) of the CrPC is denied. U/s 200 CrPC can be used to conveniently handle the complaint. Respondent No. 1 filed a revision application before the High Court, aggrieved by and unsatisfied with the decision. Because of the challenged judgment, the High Court issued the following order on the first day of the hearing, despite the alleged concurrence of the learned APP acting for the State: On hearing learned counsel for the gatherings, it has concurred that the censured request dated 7.2.2008 be saved with heading to the learned MM to look at the matter once again subsequent to requiring a report from the police specialists. The police specialists are to hold a fundamental request on the premise of the protest made by the solicitor/complainant and present a report to the gained Judge in something like three weeks from today. On March 24, 2008, the petitioner will appear before the trial court. The petition has been dismissed. A halfway request was made in support of himself. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has declined to exercise jurisdiction per Code Section 156(3). If the appellant had a chance to be heard, he might have shown that there was no admissible revision application or that there was no reason to interfere with the challenged judgment.
Conclusion:
This ruling of the High Court, in My opinion, is prima facie unsustainable in law since the appellant, in this case, was not given the opportunity to present his argument that the learned Judge had broken every rule of natural justice and the law’s need that a party is heard before an adverse decision was made. Therefore, the opinion that the contested judgment cannot stand and should be overturned as a result. The High Court will rehear the case, hear the appellant as a party in the criminal revision application, and provide the necessary ruling.
written by TANNU JOLLY, LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, (VIII SEMESTER)
