ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 171/2015 and order dated 10.09.2015 passed by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Begusarai.

2. The relevant facts as emerging from the record are that Criminal Complaint bearing No. 15150©/2014 was filed by OP No.2, Manoj Devi against petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with 34 IPC in the court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai.

3. It further transpires that Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining one witness, transferred the complaint under Section 192 CrPC to the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Begusarai for enquiry and trial. In course of the enquiry, Ld. Judicial Magistrate examined four witnesses and found prima facie case under Section 417 IPC against the petitioners, and, hence, he directed issuance of summons against them. The complainant, who is OP No. 2, Manoj Devi, being aggrieved by the order, preferred Cr. Revision bearing 171/2015 which was allowed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai by the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 finding that prima facie case is made out against the accused, who are petitioners herein, under Sections 420, 406, 468 IPC. Hence, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class and directed him to make further enquiry and pass a fresh order.

4. In compliance of the order of Ld. Revisional Court, Sri. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Begusarai passed impugned order dated 10.09.2015 in Complaint Case No. 15150©/2014 finding prima facie case under Section 420, 406 and 468 of the IPC against the petitioners and directed issuance of summons against them.

5. 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. The accused petitioners were not impleaded as Opposite Party in the criminal revision petition and hence no notice was issued to them and they were deprived of their right to hearing.

6. He also relies upon Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadi vs. Shaileshbhai Muljibhai Patel [(2012) 10 SCC 517].

7. However, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 defend the impugned orders submitting that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders.

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

9. Before I consider the rival 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 H