TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty, the petitioners/non-applicants (hereinafter called 'the accused persons') had moved the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order of charge passed against the said petitioners. The circumstances under which the applicant has moved this application need to be stated in the first instance. 2. The applicant Smt. Madhu Bagga had filed a complaint against her husband and other relations under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The charge sheet was framed against the accused persons. These accused persons included the applicant's husband, his two brothers and sisters. They filed revision petition against the order of framing of charge by the learned MM which was dismissed by the learned ASJ on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that no charge under Section 406 was framed on 18.7.2002. In fact, on that date, the MM had framed charge not only under Section 498A/34 but also under Section 406 IPC, and vide order dated 15.11.2003 charge under Section 406 IPC was only reiterated. Therefore, learned ASJ had rightly dismissed the revision petition as time barred counting the period of limitation from 18.7.2002. b.In the aforesaid petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC by the accused persons, the applicant was not made a party though she was an essential party and without hearing her, the said order has been passed. 6. I was taken through the order dated 18.7.2002 passed by the learned MM. The perusal thereof shows that the plea of the applicant is correct. By this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....get the same corrected by way of an appeal before the higher forum. There is no quarrel about the aforesaid proposition of law, however, this proposition of law would not be applicable in the facts of this case. The accused persons could not deny that in the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the charge which was framed on the complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant is a necessary party. 9. The Supreme Court has held, time and again, that without hearing the complainant, orders on such petition quashing charge, should not be passed. Thus, the order dated 18.11.2006 was passed without hearing the applicant. This order has adversely affected the applicant in as much as order of charge framed against the accused pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him from reaching the court for ventilating his grievance. Even in the sessions court, where the Public Prosecutor is the only authority empowered to conduct the prosecution as per Section 225 of the Code, a private person who is aggrieved by the offence involved in the case is not altogether debarred from participating in the trial. This can be discerned from Section 301(2) of the Code. x-------x An aggrieved private person is not altogether to be eclipsed from the scenario when the criminal court takes cognizance of the offences based on the report submitted by the police. The reality cannot be overlooked that the genesis in almost all such cases is the grievance of one or more individual that they were wronged by the accused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay call it ``void'` or a nullity if one chooses to). In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule (audi alteram partem). (b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation (of a facet of the rule audi alteram partem) has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice; in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. (It is made clear that this principle (No. 5) does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are ....