Heard Shri Anil Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant, Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for respondent no.1 & Shri A.D.Sonak A.P.P. for respondent no.2.

2. By this application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola in Criminal Complaint Case No.407/2004 dated 16.8.2006 on Ex. 25, by which he had rejected the application of the applicants (alleged accused no.1 to 4), seeking permission to participate in the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint instituted by respondent no.1 Sau. Asha Patel.

3. It may be stated that the complainant respondent No.1 had filed the instant complaint for the offences punishable under section 107, 403, 405, 409, 415, 418, 463, 468, 477-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this complaint, the complainant has made allegations seeking action against the applicants accused persons calling for their conviction, however, the complainant had specifically prayed that the complaint may be sent to the police authorities for investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It may be stated that on that complaint, the relevant order was passed and the complaint was referred to police under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused then challenged that order in Criminal Revision Application no.127/2004 in Sessions Court Akola. By order dated 4.8.2005, learned Additional sessions Judge, Akola allowed that revision application and passed an order to set aside that order of the learned Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. R & P was sent to the lower court and the lower court was informed. It may be mentioned that the learned revisional Judge had held that the impugned order of the trial Judge under section 156(3) was not warranted. According to him, that order was not correct, for the reasons stated in the order.

5. Thereafter, respondent no.1 approached this court in revision application no.173/2005 to challenge that order. Learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 25.4.2006, found that the orders dated 22.4.2005 and 5.8.2005 i.e. order of the learned Magistrate and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are liable to be set aside. The final order reads thus :

10. The revision application, is therefore, allowed. Orders dated 22nd April, 2005 and 5th August 2005 are quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the question regarding dismissal of complaint or otherwise afresh. It is needless to state that before any order is passed by the learned Magistrate in the matter, the present applicant shall be given an opportunity of being heard. it is further needles to state that the learned Magistrate while proceeding with the issue, would also take into consideration the report submitted by the police station officer, City Kotwali, Police Station, Akola earlier.. Thereafter, the matter was again dealt with by the learned Trial Judge. In view of the observations of this court, that what was quashed and set aside by the learned revisional court was only the order directing investigatin under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate was therefore, duty bound to consider case of the complainant on its own merits and thereafter decide the issue.

6. When the matter was being considered by the learned trial Judge, a report under section 156(3) from Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola was received. It was reported that no criminal offence has been made out vide report submitted on 11.8.2005.

7. Applicants - accused thereafter moved an application for allowing them to be heard. Relevant prayer in his application dated 4.7.2006 reads thus: .Prayer: It is thus most humbly prayed that application be allowed and in the interest of justice the accused who were party before the High Court be granted an opportunity of hearing in the interest of ju