Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS. versus RAKESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

Decided
17 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 490 · 2009 INSC 550
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 490, margin G

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who allowed the application filed in terms of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ·code') assailing the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The primary stand taken in this appeal is that the revision petition was allowed and disposed of even without issuance of notice to the present appellants .

p. 491, margin A

3

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellants filed for revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur questioning correctness of the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Single Judge held that no person who is accused of a cognizable offence can file for revision before registration of FIR against him since the order under Section 156(3) of Code is an administrative order at a pre cognizance stage under Chapter XII of Code.

p. 491, margin B

4

It is submitted that the revision petition had been fiWd by the present respondents. If the High Court was of the view that the order of learned Sessions Judge was indefensible it ought to have granted an opportunity to the present appellants to have their say in the matter. The learned Single Judge closed the issues conclusively by holding that the revision petition was not maintainable. If that was the view the learned Single Judge ought to have given a notice to the present appellants to show that the revision was maintainable. By disposing of the application without issuance of notice to the present appellants, they are prejudiced and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

p. 491, margin D

5

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that at the cognizance stage no notice need be given to the accused. Since the order was passed in favour of the present appellants, same ought not to have been set aside A without issuance of notice to them.

pp. 491–492, margin G

6

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court. Let the parties appear without further notice on 22.4.2009. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Until the disposal of the matter by the High Court the proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed.

p. 492

7

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.

p. 492