SHAILA DAMODAR SINAI BORKAR AND ANR v. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, POLICE INSPECTOR, PONDA AND 2 ORS
Mandatory Right of Hearing for Prospective Accused in Revision Petitions Challenging Dismissal of Section 156(3) CrPC Applications.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:664
Decision Date: 02-04-2026
List of Laws
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Principles of Natural Justice; Section 156(3) of CrPC; Section 401(2) of CrPC; Revisional Jurisdiction
- Facts: The Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ponda, seeking registration of an FIR against the Petitioners. The JMFC dismissed this application on 15.03.2024. Aggrieved by this dismissal, Respondent No.3 preferred a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 20.08.2025, allowed the revision, set aside the JMFC's order, and directed the police to register an FIR. Consequently, FIR No.125/2025 was registered against the Petitioners for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including theft and criminal trespass. The Petitioners challenged this order on the grounds that they were never heard during the revision proceedings.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa by filing a Criminal Writ Petition seeking to quash the Sessions Court's order dated 20.08.2025 and the subsequent FIR registered by the Ponda Police Station.
- Issue: Whether a Revisional Court is legally mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to a prospective accused before deciding a revision application filed by a complainant against the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
- Holding: Yes, the prospective accused must be heard. The High Court held that any order passed in revision to the prejudice of the accused or a prospective accused without giving them an opportunity of being heard is a violation of the mandatory provisions of the CrPC.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on Sections 397, 399, and 401(2) of the CrPC, noting that Section 401(2) explicitly prohibits making an order to the prejudice of the accused or "other person" unless they have had an opportunity of being heard. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in "Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel" and "Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu", which established that a suspect gets a right of hearing in a revisional court to defend an order operating in their favour, regardless of whether the matter is at a pre-cognizance or post-process stage. The Court emphasized that natural justice and the right to fair procedure require that a party whose substantive rights are affected by the reversal of a lower court's order must be heard. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and the resultant FIR, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing with the Petitioners added as parties.
🔒 For Members Only