IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19400 of 1999 1. BHUNA YADAV, S/O LATE MOSAFIR YADAV 2. AKHLESH YADAV @ AKHLESH PD., S/O BHUNA YADAV, BOTH R/O-VILLAGE-SURJANCHAK, P.S. KARAI, DIST- NALANDA…………………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR……OPPOSITE 1ST PARTY 2. KALLU KORESI, S/O NANHAK KORESI R/O VILLAGE-KARAI, P.S.KARAI, DISTT-NALANDA……………………..….COMPLAINANT- OPPOSITE SECOND PARTY ----------- For petitioners:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ranjan-I, Adv. Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Damodar Pd Tiwary, APP For O.P. No.2:- Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv. ----------- 4. 30-Apr-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners have challenged revisional order dated 29.06.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Cr. Revision No. 71/1999. By that order the revisional court set aside the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Complaint Case No. 393(c)/ 1998 by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint case after enquiry, and directed for holding further enquiry. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points. Firstly, it has been submitted that although no cognizance was ever taken against the petitioners who were - 2 - arrayed as accused in the complaint petition, they should have been treated as necessary party and revision petition should have been decided only after hearing them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State placed reliance upon Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which gives an option to the court hearing the revision petition of hearing or not hearing any party. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State that no doubt such option has to be exercised by the revisional court judicially and for good reasons but in the present case when the matter relates to dismissal of a complaint at the stage of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is well established in law that at this stage the alleged accused has no locus standi and therefore the accused persons cannot challenge the revisional order through this Court’s extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only by raising a technical plea of not being heard by revisional court. 4. In a criminal case the procedure even at enquiry stage is required to be fair but it must also ensure that there is no undue delay in reaching the next appropriate stage. - 3 - Delay in a criminal case invariably helps the accused. An enquiry at pre-cognizance should not take the shape of a mini-trial requiring hearing the proposed accused. Considering both the aspects, it appears proper to hold that a proposed accused cannot have locus standi and cannot claim as a matter of right that he must be heard even before cognizance has been taken against him and when the complaint case is still at the stage of enquiry. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the first submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 5. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is on merits of the case. He has pointed out that the revisional court has observed that 4 witnesses examined during the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have supported the allegation against the accused but according to learned counsel, one of the four witnesses, namely, Md. Shikari, CW-4 has, in fact, not supported the prosecution case. On going through the order of the learned Magistrate and the order of revisional court, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has tried to weigh the evidence as if he was deciding the case at the stage of trial and the - 4 - revisional court has rightly pointed out that this is not the correct approach. At the time of cognizance even if the evidence of one of the 4 witnesses is discarded, there remains sufficient corroboration by way of evidence of three other witnesses and in that view of the matter the order of the revisional court directing for further enquiry cannot be faulted. The lacuna pointed out in respect of evidence of CW-4 is said to be applicable to other witnesses also, because they have also given out reasons for enmity between the parties. It will not be proper for this Court to express any opinion on the merits of such evidence when the matter has been only remitted by learned Magistrate for further enquiry. 6. On a careful appraisal of the impugned order, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the same. This application is, therefore, dismissed. 7. It is made clear that any discussion or observation in this order shall not prejudice the case of the any party. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)