Notice of revision, cognizance of offence
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Ld. Friends,
The Cr. P. C. does not define what is taking
"Cognizance of offence" but lays down procedure. Many times the private complaints
are dismissed, sometimes with a speaking order or without. I go in for the Revision and the Bench insists upon issuing a Notice to the Accused although the Private Complaint is dismissed in limine after verification & nominal enquiry but without
1.examining witness;
2.Calling the accused;
3.an order to the Police to investigate.
SO IT IS A BALD DISMISSAL IN LIMINE as 200 and 203 has also not been complied with yet stating that NO INGREDIENT OF OFFENCE HAS BEEN MADE OUT IN THE COMPLAINT.
Now when 397cr.p.c.is for calling of records, 398 is power to order inquiry after calling of records and an opportunity to the Discharged person for hearing, CAN SESSIONS INSIST UPON THE notice to the accused in such a baldly dismissed complaint revision application ?
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 10 October 2011
revisional court insist upon notice to accused a condtion precent for giving directions to magistrate under sec 398 crpc.when he was not deemed accused before magistrate so fresh proccedings shall be started after giving him notice.no doubt about it.
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 10 October 2011
Notice to accused in the aforesaid case is unwarranted as no process was issued and the accused has not appeared.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 10 October 2011
In revision it is necessary to call upon respondent for hearing.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 10 October 2011
No.
Revisionist court can not do so. It would ask the same court to re-investigate and summon accused, if the facts of case so warrants.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 10 October 2011
arun kumar bhagats view is correct than all of us
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 11 October 2011
With due respect to all the Ld. Friends,
I do agree with the views presented by the Experts that
As I think as follows-
i)that the Notice is not necessary-
because the Order of Calling records for the purpose of Revision (u/s397)is first to be issued, then after the material on record the Revisionist Judge should deem it fit to direct the sub magistrate to make further inquiry and issue notice before that to the person discharged by the sub magistrate.(u/s398 & 399)
ii)NOTICE is required u/s401 to the Accused or other person.
Hence in the case of Revision before the Sessions and the High Court which have been challenged on ground of dismissal before the cognisance of offence, the Code offers two procedures.
do the experts think that the Cognizance of offence is the crux of the matter u/s397,398,399 ?
I say so as the Revisionist is freed from issuing Notice to the REspondent cognizance of offence was not taken and the complaint was dismissed. This can be decided only when Records are called for .
Is my query still in open to reply?
