The principles of natural justice require that a party be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed against them.

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') presents some unusual features. A Court of Law is not to be utilised as an instrument of harassment to any person. Court has to deal with iron hands those abuse process of law. It would be a travesty to permit a party to 'persecute' instead of 'prosecuting'.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties (also described as 'complainants') filed ICC No. 179 of 1993 in the Court of Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'the Magistrate') alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc' ). On perusal of the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of witness Rabindra Kumar Jena, recorded under Section 202 of the Code, learned Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case under Section 500, IPC against the accused-petitioners was made out. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken. Against such order of learned Magistrate, Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1994 was filed in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. On 23-4-1994, opposite parties in the revision application (the present opposite parties who were complainants)) filed an application in the said Court in the aforesaid Criminal Revision to send back the lower Court records in ICC No. 179 of 1993 to the learned Magistrate and/or set aside the order of cognizance dated 3-12-1993 passed by the Learned Magistrate. On that day, another application was filed before the learned Magistrate in the concerned complaint case stating that the complainants may be permitted to withdraw the complaint case. On 23-4-1994, the complainants filed an application for advancing the date and to take up the case records for final order. The prayer was got accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that the matter shall be taken up on 25-4-1994. On 25-4-1994, prayer was made by the learned counsel for petitioners to give him two days' time to get ready for hearing of the revision application. The prayer was not accepted. Oral prayer made for adjournment was rejected, and the matter was directed to be placed on 5-5-1994 for judgment.

( 3 ) THE judgment dated 5-5-1994 was passed holding that there was no scope to interfere with the order taking cognizance and to set aside such order by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. On 7-5-1994 the learned counsel for complainant filed an application not to press the petition dated 23-4-1994 which contained the prayer not to press the complaint. That was not the date to which the matter was posted. Learned Magistrate accepted the prayer made by the opposite parties not to press the petition dated 23-4-1994, and treated the same as not pressed. The matter was directed to be put up on the date fixed for appearance of the accused. It is to be noted that another petition was filed on 3-4-1995 with prayer to withdraw the complaint. That was rejected on the ground that this Court's order of stay was operative.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not sanctioned in law. The petition for not pressing the withdrawal petition was taken up on a date to which the matter was not posted. Even the petitioners were not granted the opportunity to have their say in the matter.

( 5 ) NONE appears for the opposite parties when the matter is called.

( 6 ) THE scenario as presented by the present petitioners reveals that the opposite parties played hide and seek with the Court of Justice. They were insistent for withdrawal of the complaint. Two applications were filed for that purpose, one before the learned Magistrate, and the other before the revisional Court. The prayer on 23-4-1994 before the revisional Court was to take up the matter that day so that the records can be sent back to the learned Magistrate