Sanjiv Khanna, J.:—

This matter has been listed before us in view of the order dated 19th March, 2012. In the said order, conflicting decisions of two single Judges of this Court, being Crl. M.C. 2626/2009 Prakash Devi & Ors. vs. State of Delhi & Anr., decided on 5th February, 2010 and Crl. Revision Petition No. 523/2009 Yashpal Kumar vs. Bhola Nath Khanna & Anr., decided on 1st March, 2012, have been noticed.

2. At this stage, we record that by order dated 19th March, 2012, Crl.M.C. 1737/2011 has been disposed of and therefore, we need not refer to the factual matrix. We are only required to adjudicate and decide, in view of the conflicting decisions, the following question of law:-

“Whether and in what cases the Sessions Court or the High Court while deciding a revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is required and mandated by law to issue notice to the opposite side who has not been summoned to stand trial”

3. The said question arises in “private complaints” or when the complainant is required to lead pre-summoning evidence. Orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrates can be made subject matter of challenge in Revision Petitions