ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 09.01.2015 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge 6th Nalanda in Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2014 and order dated 16.02.2015 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in G.R. No. 4295 of 2013, corresponding to Trial No. 4993 of 2013 arising out of Biharsharif P.S. Case No. 415 of 2013.

2. The relevant facts as emerging from the record are that Biharsharif P.S. Case No. 415 of 2013 was lodged against four accused persons including the petitioners herein for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 379 read with Section 34 IPC. However, after investigation, the case was not found true against the petitioner no. 1, namely, Jitendra Kumar and co-accused Shashi Bhusan Kumar and Bodyguard. However, case was found true against the petitioner no. 2, namely, Mithilesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Kumar and hence, exonerating the petitioner no. 1 – Jitendra Kumar, co-accused Mithilesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Kumar and Bodyguard, chargesheet was submitted only against petitioner no. 2 - Mithilesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the impugned order dated 28.05.2014/29.05.2014 was passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioner no. 2 - Mithilesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Kumar only. Subsequently, informant preferred Cr. Revision bearing no. 225 of 2014, wherein Ld. Revisional Court, by the impugned order dated 09.01.2015, observed that the accused had been exonerated by the police wrongly and hence, he sets aside the order dated 28.05.2014/29.05.2014 referring to case diary and directed Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh order. Subsequently, in pursuance to the revisional order, Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2015, whereby cognizance has been taken against all the four accused persons including the petitioners and other co-accused Shashi Bhusan Kumar and Bodyguard for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 & 379 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the petitioners, being aggrieved, have preferred the present petition for quashing the impugned orders.

3. Heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. APP for the State. However, no body appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2 despite proper service of notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order dated 09.01.2015 has been passed by Ld. Revisional Court to the prejudice of petitioner no. 1 – Jitendra Kumar without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that neither the petitioner no. 1, nor other accused, who were exonerated by the police after investigation, were impleaded, as Respondents in the Criminal Revision, nor any notice was issued to them by Ld. Revisional Court before passing the impugned order, whereas the mandate of principles of natural justice is that no prejudicial order can be passed against anybody without hearing him. He also refers to Section 401(2) Cr.PC. which provides that no order under this Section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other persons unless he has had opportunity of being heard, either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

5. Ld. APP for the State, however, defends the impugned orders. He further points out that petitioner no. 2 – Mithilesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Kumar had no occasion to impugn the revisional order dated 09.01.2015 or impugned order dated 16.02.2015, because by the original cognizance order dated 28.05.2014/29.05.2014, cognizance of offence was taken against him and hence, the impugned orders are no way prejudicial to him and he has no locus to challenge the impugned orders. In case, he was aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2014/29.05.2014 passed by Ld.