Court quashes order for lack of hearing, emphasizes accused's right to be heard

The Court quashed and set aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Nos. 2 of 1988 due to lack of opportunity for the accused to be heard. The Court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for the accused to present their case before passing such orders. The applicants were granted relief without delving into the merits of the case, and the Magistrate was directed to hear both sides and decide on the application in the criminal case without requiring a fresh notice.

---

---

Issues involved:
Application for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Nos. 2 of 1988 without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused.

Analysis:

1. The applicants filed applications to quash the order dated 10-7-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused persons were personally present before the Magistrate, and the order allowed accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 to be joined. The applicants challenged this order, alleging lack of opportunity for hearing.

2. The Court noted that the Magistrate passed the order based on an RPAD Slip endorsement without giving the applicants a chance to be heard. The Court emphasized that before passing such orders, the accused should be given an opportunity to present their case. The Court highlighted that while RPAD service is permissible for out-of-state accused, in this case, the notice was refused, leading to the order without proper hearing.

3. Considering the lack of opportunity given to the applicants, the Court decided to allow the applications without delving into the merits of the case. The order dated 10-7-1989 in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1988 was quashed and set aside by the Court.

4. The learned advocate mentioned that the applicants would appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on a specified date. The Court clarified that no fresh notice was necessary, and the Magistrate would hear both sides and decide on the application in the criminal case. The parties were allowed to submit relevant documents for the Magistrate's consideration.

5. Based on the observations and directions provided, the Court allowed the applications, making the rule absolute. The applicants were granted relief due to the lack of opportunity for hearing before the order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

---