SURAJMAL KARWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the accused. He has made a grievance that the revisional Court had not followed mandate of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C.and the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the accused.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has urged that revisional Court below has set aside the order whereby final report was accepted by the Magistrate without affording opportunity of hearing to the accused and thus prejudice has been caused to the accused. It is further contended that Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. specifically state that no order shall be passed by the revisional Court to the prejudice of the accused or any other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by the pleader in his own defence.

(3.) To appreciate the above said arguments, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts. Kumbha Ram respondent no. 2 on 04.04.2003 submitted a complaint against the petitioner and other accused. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof FIR no. 79/2003 was registered at Sujangarh Police Station District Churu for the offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC. After completion of investigation final negative report was submitted. To assail the same, complainant-respondent no. 2 had preferred protest petition before the Court of the Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate after hearing both the parties rejected the protest petition vide order dated 22.06.2005 and accepted the final negative report. The said order was challenged by the complainant by filing the revision petition.