# Nihal v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 46 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-01-16 - **Bench:** Ashok Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nihal-v-state-of-u-p-42527 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Juvenile Justice Act, Section 52 readwith section 401(2) Cr.P.C.-Right of complainant/informant to be heard in revision-offence u/s 302 Cr.P.C.- argument that informant is not a personsaid to be adversely affected-held-in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Babloo Pasi case-complainant of F.I.R. Definitely an aggrieved personopportunity of hearing is must-necessary direction issued. Held: Para 10 On the basis of the above discussions I am of the view that in such type of cases the complainant of the FIR is definitely an aggrieved person and must be given an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in such type of revisions. Caselaw discussed: 2009 (64) ACC 754; 2009 (65) ACC 629 ## Text 46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Revision No. - 2211 of 2012 Nihal ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. Arun Srivastva Sri Rajiv.Lochan.Shukla Sri Shrawan Kumar Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Juvenile Justice Act, Section 52 readwith section 401(2) Cr.P.C.-Right of complainant/informant to be heard in revision-offence u/s 302 Cr.P.C.- argument that informant is not a personsaid to be adversely affected-held-in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Babloo Pasi case-complainant of F.I.R. Definitely an aggrieved personopportunity of hearing is must-necessary direction issued. Held: Para 10 On the basis of the above discussions I am of the view that in such type of cases the complainant of the FIR is definitely an aggrieved person and must be given an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in such type of revisions. Caselaw discussed: 2009 (64) ACC 754; 2009 (65) ACC 629 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.) 1. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist Nihal and the learned AGA. The short question, at this stage, which is to be answered in the revision is whether the complainant-informant of the FIR should be heard in this revision or not. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.6.2011 an FIR was lodged with the police of P.S.Kotwali Pilibhit regarding an incident of murder which took place on the same day at about 6.30 p.m. The revisionist was named as an accused in the case. At a subsequent stage the revisionist took the plea that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident which was considered and his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for determination of his age. He was declared a juvenile. Thereafter a bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act (for short the Act) was moved before the Board. After calling for a report from the District Probation Officer and after hearing both the parties the Board was of the view that it was not in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law to release him on bail and give him to the custody of his mother and therefore the application of the revisionist under section 12 of the Act was rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order an appeal under section 52 of the Act was preferred before the Court of learned Sessions Judge which was ultimately disposed of by the learned additional Sessions Judge and the appeal was dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the dismissal and earlier order of rejection the present revision has been filed. As mentioned above the sole question involved here is whether the informant/complainant of the case under section 302 IPC namely Ramesh should be heard by this Court before disposing of this revision or not. 5. Mr.R.L.Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the 1 All] Nihal V. State of U.P. 47 complainant-informant of the FIR is not a person who can be said to be 'adversely affected' by the order which may be passed in this revision and which might result in allowance of this revision. 6. Learned AGA has opposed such arguments and said that from the language of Section 53 of the Act it is evident that any order passed under this revision will definitely affect the complainant of the case of murder and if the revision is allowed such order will definitely be prejudicial to him. Section 54 of the Act is as follows:- "54.Procedure in inquiries, appeals and revision proceedings- 1.Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, a competent authority while holding any inquiry under any of the provisions of this Act, shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and subject thereto, shall follow, as far as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for trials in summons cases. 2.Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the procedure to be followed in hearing appeals or revision proceedings under this Act shall be as far as practicable, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)." Section 53 of the Act is as follows:- " 53.Revision- The high Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit; Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 7. Since in section 54 of the Act reference of Cr.P.C. has come it appears necessary that sub-section 2 of Sec.401 Cr.P.C. should also be quoted here which is: "No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleaser in his own defence.? My attention has been drawn towards 2009(64) ACC 754, Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jhakhaand and another & 2009(65) ACC 629 Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/S Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. and another. 8. From a bare perusal of the proviso attached to Section 53 of the Act it is evident that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Sub-section 2 of section 401 Cr.P.C. states that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. It is the established position of law that the provisions of law should be understood and taken in its plain and simple sense unless there is any scope for interpretation of the same. There should not be any unnecessary stretching of terms and jugglery of words to 48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 complicate a matter to arrive at a conclusion which may suit a person competent in doing such stretching or jugglery. 9. In Babloo Pasi's case (Supra) Babloo Pasi was the appellant of the case and the accused was respondent no.2. In para 11 of the said judgment the Apex Court has said that in its opinion having regard to the nature of controversy before the High Court and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions whereunder the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction, the 'fairness in action' did demand that the complainant(appellant of the said case) should have been given an opportunity of hearing in the revision preferred by the accused(respondent no.2 of the said case). It is true that the Apex Court has further said in the following lines that the appellant of the said case was impleaded as party respondent, but this by itself does not mean that if he did not appear before the trial Court he should not be heard by the High Court when the revision was argued before it. From bare perusal of Para 11 of Babloo Pasi's case it is evident that complaint of such type of cases should be heard in revision under section 53 of the Act. 10. On the basis of the above discussions I am of the view that in such type of cases the complainant of the FIR is definitely an aggrieved person and must be given an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in such type of revisions. 11. Accordingly, the revisionist is directed to implead the complainant of the F.I.R. of the case as respondent no.2 in this revision. For the purpose an impleadment application may be moved within 7 days from today. Put up on 23.1.2013 for orders. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2012 India Waste Energy Development Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority And Another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Anoop Trivedi Sri Anil Mullick Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Nisheeth Yadav Constitution of India, Article 227 readwith Arbitration an Conciliation Act 1996 Section 34/42-petition against the award made by the Arbitration can not be challenged before the High Court as according to definition of Court means the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction of the District Judge-heldpetition under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 34 readwith Section 42 not maintainable in the High Court-petition dismissed. Held: Para-12 and 13 The 'court' is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act to mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and may include a High Court in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration, if it had been the subject matter of the suit and would not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court. It has been settled by various authorities that the court of District Judge in district