1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2102 OF 2009 Mr. Anil Pandurang Nalawade. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Mohanlal Gulabji Borana & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. M.K. Kocharekar i/b. Rajeev Sawant & Assoc. for the Applicant. Mr. P.M. Purohi i/b. M.D. Mali & Co. for Respondent 1. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 20th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Applicant is the Original Accused in a complaint which is filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai being C.C. No.1042/M/2001 and now re- numbered as 4704042/SS/2008. The complaint is alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(1) r/w. 114 of I.P.C. 2. The complaint is filed on 4th August 2001. The Trial Court at the stage of verification dismissed the complaint by exercising its power under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge held that looking into the allegations made in the complaint, the acts have direct nexus with the discharge of the official duties by the Applicant/Accused and therefore, for want of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., the subject complaint is not maintainable. Hence, there is no need to 2 issue process against the Accused. On this reasoning, he dismissed the complaint. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the Original Complainant invoked the Revisional Jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay. Criminal Revision Application No.23 of 2003 is filed to challenge that order. The Applicant is not a party to the said application. However, when the complaint was dismissed, the learned Judge proceeded to hear only the Complainant and the learned APP for the State and quashed the order of the Trial Court dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Kocharekar, learned Advocate appearing in support of this Application invited my attention to Section 397(2) and Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. and contended that in the course of revisional proceedings, if the Court proposes to pass any order prejudicial to the interest of the Accused, then, the said order could have been passed only after hearing the Applicant/Accused. There is a serious legal infirmity and an order to the prejudice to the Applicant/Accused has been passed in this case. Therefore, it should be set aside for want of compliance with the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned Counsel for the Original Complainant/Respondent to this Writ Petition urged that the order has been passed by the Revisional Court, when the Complaint of the Complainant was dismissed at the stage of 3 verification and before issuance of process. The Accused has no locus-standi at that stage to appear in the matter. 6. However, without going into the larger question posed for determination, both sides agree that in the facts peculiar to this case, the order of Revisional Court be set aside. Criminal Revision Application No.23 of 2003 be restored to the file of the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay for disposal afresh and on merits and in accordance with law but after hearing the Applicant. Accordingly, the memo of the Revision Application be amended so as to implead the present Applicant/Accused as a party Respondent thereto and after due notice to both sides, the Revisional Court to hear and dispose off the Revision Application, uninfluenced by earlier observations and as expeditiously as possible. It should endeavor to dispose off this Revision Application within a period of three months from today. All contentions of both sides on maintainability of the complaint and merits are kept open. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)