ORDER :

1. The petitioner-accused has come to this Court, in this Criminal Misc Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) for assailing the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (for short “the revisional court”) in Criminal Revision No. 89/2008 titled as Om Prakash Vs. State, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent No.2 Om Prakash (complainant) was allowed and order dated 03.04.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur (for short “the trial court”) in Criminal Complaint No.32/2007 titled as Om Prakash Vs. Ramakishan was set aside.

2. The revisional court while setting aside the said order, directed the trial court to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC and to initiate the trial. This order has been challenged by the petitioner-accused in the instant criminal petition.

3. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that a criminal complaint came to be filed in the trial court by the complainant by arraigning the petitioner, besides some other persons as accused. The complainant sought prosecution of said persons describing the various facts and alleging inter-alia that accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 458, 427, 363, 147, 148, 379, 365, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC against the complainant and his family members.

4. The trial court, vide order dated 03.04.2008 dismissed the said complaint. A Revision was filed by the complainant and vide impugned order dated 06.01.2009, the revisional court allowed the revision as stated above.

5. The sole question for consideration is, whether the suspect/proposed accused is entitled for hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the complainant, challenging the order of dismissing the complaint by the trial court Magistrate.

6. Shri Chiranji Lal Mali, learned counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently and fervently argued that the impugned order passed by the revisional court, being contrary to the principles of natural justice and law, is clearly an abuse of process of law, hence it deserves to be set aside.

7. The first contention of Shri Mali is that the said order was passed without notice to the accused; that the accused was entitled to be heard in the criminal revision filed by the complainant challenging the order of trial court. It is argued that accused has a right to be heard in a revision filed by the complainant as no order can be made to the prejudice of accused or the other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard under Section 398 and 401 (2) read with Section 399 of the Code. It is further argued that criminal proceedings launched by the complainant had come to an end and if the revision preferred by the complainant is accepted that would have the effect of revival of the complaint and setting the criminal process back in motion, which would be definitely prejudicial to the accused and before any such prejudicial order is passed, the accused ought to be heard.

8. The second contention of Shri Mali is that the provision of Section 398 of the Code has completely been ignored by the revisional court. While disposing the revision, the revisional court can neither take cognizance itself nor direct the trial court to take cognizance of any offence against any person thus, he urged that impugned order which has been passed against the petitioner, being abuse of process of law, deserves to be quashed.

9. Reliance was placed by learned counsel representing the petitioner in support of his arguments on the following judgments:-

1. (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna

2. 2021 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 721, Sachin Singhal Vs. Superintendent of Police

3. 2012 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1817, Syed Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

4. AIR 2020 SC 3324, Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar & Ors.

5. 2013 Cri.L.J. 144, Ma