Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must a person be heard before a High Court passes a remand order setting aside refusal of cognizance against him?

Yes, where that remand necessarily works prejudice against him. The Court held the High Court erred in dispensing with notice to the accused on the reasoning that he had no right to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage, since a remand setting aside refusal of cognizance would necessarily prejudice him.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Criminal prosecution as recovery tool — Civil dispute — Natural justice — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Money dispute is not a criminal wrong — Held: Where a money transaction is found on investigation and the demand is only for its return, the remedy is a civil suit, not criminal prosecution used to arm-twist repayment once limitation for a civil recovery suit has expired. (¶7) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Notice before a prejudicial remand — Held further: A person prejudiced by a remand setting aside refusal of cognizance ought to be heard first. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed, restoring dismissal of the complaint. (¶6, 8)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sandeep Shukla v. State of U.P. & Anr — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India