“53.We are in complete agreement with the view expressed
by this Court in P. Sundarrajan [(2004) 13 SCC 472 : (2006)
1 SCC (Cri) 345] , Raghu Raj Singh Rousha (2009) 2 SCC
363 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 801] and A.N. Santhanam [(2012)
12 SCC 321 : (2011) 2 JCC 720] . We hold, as it must be,
that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant
before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an
order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under
Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or
after following the process contemplated under Section 202
of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to
have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the
Revisional Court. In other words, where the complaint has
been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the
Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being
laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High
Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned
as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such
revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section
401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional Court overturns the
order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the
complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is
sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are
alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have,
however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are
they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the
Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the
Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question
accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the
contrary are overruled.”
