ORDER

The present petition, under Section 482 CrPC, has been preferred by the petitioners against impugned order dated 13.04.2015 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna city, Patna whereby the Cr. Revision No. 751/2013, filed by Opposite Party No.2, has been allowed to the prejudice of the accused persons, who are petitioners herein, without giving any opportunity to them for hearing.

2. The relevant facts as emerging from the record are that a criminal complaint was filed by one Md. Sharique Ahmad who is Respondent No.2 herein against accused persons, namely, 1. Nawab Alam, 2. Musarrat Nawab, 3. Kahkashan Nawab, 4. Sayama Nawab and 5. Fahad Nawab who are petitioners in the present petition.

3. However, after enquiry, Ld. SDJM, Patnacity dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC vide order dated 21.10.2013 passed in C.A. Case No. 1106/2012. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. SDJM, the complainant preferred the aforesaid Cr. Revision No. 751/2013 before Sessions Court, Patna which was allowed by the impugned order dated 13.04.2015 setting aside the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Ld. SDJM in CA. No. 1106/2012 and directing Ld. SDJM to conduct fresh inquiry and pass an appropriate order as per law.

4. While allowing the revision petition, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge held that as the complaint was dismissed without issuing summons to the accused persons, there was no need to issue notice to them. Hence, the petition was allowed without hearing the accused persons who were Respondents in the Criminal Revision.

5. Heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State. However, nobody is present on behalf of Respondent No.2, despite valid service of notice.

6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed against the statutory provisions of Section 401(2) CrPC, as per which, in the aforesaid situation, the accused persons have right to hearing and revisional court cannot dispose of criminal revision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons. He also relies upon Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadi vs. Shaileshbhai Muljibhai Patel [(2012) 10 SCC 517].

7. Ld. APP for the State fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 13.04.2015 has been passed against statutory provision and binding precedent and hence the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the relevant materials on record.

9. Before I consider the submissions of the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Section 401 Cr. P.C., which reads as follows: –

“401. High Court's powers of revision. – (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392.

(2) 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.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.”