ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioners against the order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Alwar, in Criminal Revision No.14/2013, titled as Prabhudayal Mahajan & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, whereby the revision petition filed by complainants-petitioners was allowed and the order dated 09.03.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh District Alwar dismissing the protest petition filed by the complainants-petitioners, was set aside and the matter was remanded back for adjudication on the basis of Final Report as well as evidence.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners, that the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court below is against the settled position of law as it did not consider the very aspect of the matter that the Investigating Officer has submitted the Final Report in negative form after conducting proper investigation. Counsel has further submitted that the service upon the petitioner No.5, namely Bharat Lal was never effected and the impugned order was passed in his absence without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Counsel has also submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. clearly states that no order shall be passed against the accused until due opportunity of hearing is afforded to him. Counsel has contended that the complainant scratched himself to make out a false case to malafidely harass the petitioners, the present matter is clearly outcome & counterblast of landlord and tenant dispute and the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Court below was of the clear view that the case lodged by the complainant was false. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the present petition may be allowed, the impugned order dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure-1) passed by the Court of Revision be quashed & set aside and the order dated 09.03.2013 (Annexure2) passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajagarh, be upheld.

3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners, has placed reliance upon the following judgments i.e. (i) Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and Others , 2015 (1) WLC (SC) Cri.738 , ( ii) Islam Khan and anothe v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 685 and (iii) Ramjan Khan v. State of Rajasthan , 2018 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 307 .

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State, while opposing the petition, has submitted the factual report, which is taken on record.

5. As per aforesaid factual report, in the present case, F.R. No.219/2011 dated 27.12.2011 had been submitted before the Court of A.C.J.M. Rajgarh, District Alwar on 12.01.2011, as the matter was found to be false.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4, also while opposing the petition, has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Others , (2019) 14 SCC 350 .

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record as well as the judgments cited herein-above by both the parties.

8. From perusal of impugned order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Court of Revision, it reveals that the service upon the accused-petitioner No.5, namely Bharat Lal was never effected and the impugned order was passed in his absence without giving him any opportunity of hearing.

9. The