BHUNA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioners have challenged revisional order dated 29.06.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Cr. Revision No. 71/1999. By that order the revisional court set aside the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Complaint Case No. 393(c)/1998 by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint case after enquiry, and directed for holding further enquiry.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points. Firstly, it has been submitted that although no cognizance was ever taken against the petitioners who were arrayed as accused in the complaint petition, they should have been treated as necessary party and revision petition should have been decided only after hearing them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State placed reliance upon Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which gives an option to the court hearing the revision petition of hearing or not hearing any party. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State that no doubt such option has to be exercised by the revisional court judicially and for good reasons but in the present case when the matter relates to dismissal of a complaint at the stage of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is well established in law that at this stage the alleged accused has no locus standi and therefore the accused persons cannot challenge the revisional order through this Court's extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only by raising a technical plea of not being heard by revisional court.