1. Rule.

2. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By consent, heard finally.

4. The Petitioner is the original first informant. He had lodged a report with the Parola Police Station, District Jalgaon alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 392 of the IPC, 342 of the IPC, 468 of the IPC, 471 of the IPC and 420 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and the offence punishable under Sections 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 3 thereof by the Respondent No.2 herein and two others. After investigation, the police concluded that it was a false case and filed a ‘B’ summary report. The learned Magistrate before considering ‘B’ summary report, issued notice to the Petitioner, he being the first informant. At this stage, the Respondent No.2 came forward and made an application before the Magistrate praying that ‘since the first informant was being given an opportunity of being heard in connection with ‘B’ summary report filed by the investigating agency, the Respondent No.2 i.e. the accused, should also be heard in the matter’. The learned Magistrate, by relying on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hardev Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1986 Cri. L. J. 1515 Rajasthan, allowed the application of Respondent No.2 to participate in the proceedings for deciding whether or not to accept the ‘B’ summary report. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, who heard the revision application, dismissed the same, once again relying upon the same decision of the Rajasthan High Court.

5. It is in these circumstances, that the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the revision.

6. I have heard Mr. V.B.Patil, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. I have heard Mr. S.B.Yawalkar, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, as also Smt. S.D.Shelke, learned APP for the State – the Respondent No.1.

7. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that Respondent No.2, being an accused, had no locus-standi to remain present before the Magistrate and participate in the proceeding which were meant for deciding whether or not to accept the ‘B’ summary report filed by the investigating agency. It is submitted that there are a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of India, laying down that until an order issuing process is passed against him, an accused person does not come into picture, at all.

8. I have considered the matter. I have gone through the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the aforesaid reported case. The observations made by the Rajasthan High Court in the aforesaid case of Hardev Singh Sandhu (supra), which are reproduced by the learned Magistrate in his order allowing Respondent No.2 to participate in the proceedings in connection with ‘B’ summary report read as under:-

“When a protest petition is lodged and the complainant wants to be heard in support of the protest petition, if the accused persons want to join the proceedings, to put them at par with the complainant and to comply with the principles of natural justice, if the learned Magistrate allows the accused to participate in the proceedings, it cannot be said that the order of the learned Magistrate is erroneous or calls for any interference”.

It has been pointed out to me that this decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which is delivered by a learned Single Judge, was subsequently not followed by another learned Single Judge of the same High Court in the case of Vishnu Dutt and another Vs. Govind Das and others, reported in 1995 Cri. L. J. 263, after referring to a number of pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India and by holding that the decision in the case of Hardev Singh Sandhu (supra), was not good law.

9. In my opinion,