Subhrajit Saha vs State of Maharashtra and Kaberi Saha @ Kaberi

A.P. Bhangale, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for hearing with consent of learned Advocates.

Heard Mr. A. bhay Sambre, Advocate for Appellant, Mr. D.M. Kale, APP for the non applicant No. 1 and Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for the non applicant no2.

Delay condoned and the Revision is taken up for hearing forthwith.

It appears that the revision applicant has preferred revision application for quashing the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 222/2008, delivered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge2, Amravati, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge by allowing the revision application, was pleased to quash and set aside the issuance of process u/s 506 PartII r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered dismissal of the complaint, thereby discharging Sau. Kaberi w/o Subhrojit Saha (accused No. 2).

It appears that the applicant had preferred Criminal Complaint Case No. 172/2005 before the learned J.M.F.C., Court No. 1, Amravati with accusation against his father-in-law and wife. According to him, he had married with Kaberi (original accused No. 2) on 01.05.2000, according to Hindu customs and traditions. There was matrimonial dispute allegedly because of behaviour or demeanor of accused No. 2 and her parents, as according to the applicant, they were levelling false charges against him. It is also disclosed in the complaint that divorce petition was filed against Sau. Kaberi u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 15.05.2002 before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, North 24 Paraganas in West Bengal, which was decreed on 15.05.2002, and the marriage has become dissolved since then. Although, accusations were made under Sections 199, 211, 294, 420, 500 and 506 PartII of the Indian Penal Code without furnishing particulars such as date, time, place of incident and without describing the alleged incident, it appears that the learned Trial Magistrate, after recording verification of the complainant on 08.03.2005, was pleased to issue process against the Petitioner and her (now deceased) father for an offence punishable u/s 506 PartII r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 07.05.2007 passed by the learned Trial Magistrate for issuance of process to accused persons for an offence punishable u/s 506 PartII r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, who after considering the facts revealed from the record found that no prima facie case was made out. Considering the ingredients of Section 506 PartII r/w Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that, the intention on the part of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether he is alarmed or not is really of no consequence. But material has to be brought on record to show the intention to cause alarm to that person. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in application of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Reference was made in Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera alias Nabina and Others, (Orissa High Court). Thus, by the reasoned judgment, the learned Revisional Court appears to have considered the submissions made by the learned APP before the Sessions Court and decided to allow revision application and was pleased to set aside the issuance of process issued for an offence punishable u/s 506 PartII r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The grievance of the revision applicant herein is that the complainant did not appear before the Sessions Court nor his Advocate appeared on the date when the criminal revision was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati and therefore, there was no opportunity of hearing granted to the revision applicant herein. The learned Advocate further prayed that the matter be remanded for decision afresh by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati by setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

This submission has been vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate for the Respondent, who submits that, admittedly, the revision applicant and Respondent No. 2 Sau. Kaberi daughter of Sambhunath Karamkar were residing separately after their divorce since 15.05.2002. The accusations made were wide and baseless and no ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code were satisfied even from the averments in the complaint. Under these circumstances, considering the submissions advanced before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the State which were considered with reference to the record, a well reasoned judgment and order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that, in view of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure., the Court exercising the powers of revision has option to hear or not to hear the parties, therefore, no party can claim any right to be heard either personally or through Advocate before the Court exercising powers of revision. The revisional jurisdiction may be described as parental jurisdiction which is exercised by the superior court to oversee the administration of justice in the subordinate courts. Therefore, the Court may call the record and proceedings from the courts below and examine the same and satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any impugned judgment and order and then decide it. The revisional powers are for the limited purpose to superintend; supervise the administration of justice in courts below and to ensure legality, propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the courts below. No party can claim any right as matter of course to be heard either personally or by pleader before the revisional court while it is exercising powers of revision. It is purely a discretion of the revisional Court to hear any party personally or through Advocate while examining R & P. The party who wants to avail of an opportunity of hearing therefore, ought to be vigilant and take care to attend on the date of hearing and pray for hearing when the revisional court is exercising its revisional powers as contemplated in Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure For all the above reasons no fault is found with legality; propriety and correctness of the impugned order. Hence Revision application is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly.