Facts: The original complainant filed a case against two accused for offences under IPC Sections 447, 448, 451, 453, 456, and 34, alleging they broke into his premises. After evidence was recorded before charge, the complainant sought to add the present petitioner, Laxmibai, as accused No. 3 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., claiming a police report revealed her involvement. The Judicial Magistrate initially rejected this application, but the Sessions Judge, in revision, allowed it.
Procedural Posture: Laxmibai filed a criminal writ petition in the High Court challenging the Sessions Judge's order that allowed her impleadment as an accused. The High Court is hearing this petition to determine the validity of the Sessions Judge's order.
Issue: Whether the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the impleadment of the petitioner as an accused in the original complaint by exercising revisional powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. without providing her an opportunity of being heard, as required under Section 401(2) of Cr.P.C.
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge's order was unsustainable because it violated the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused under Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Reasoning: The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Mohit alias Sonu and another Vs. State of U. P. and another, 2013 AIR (SC) 2248, stating that a revisional court must provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused before passing an order that prejudices their rights. The court noted that the trial court had initially declined to implead the petitioner, and the Sessions Judge reversed this decision without notice to the petitioner. The High Court emphasized that Section 401(2) of Cr.P.C. makes it mandatory to provide such an opportunity. The court quashed the Sessions Judge's order and remanded the matter back to the revisional court, directing it to issue notice to the petitioner and provide her with a hearing before passing a fresh order.