Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

1. The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 28.11.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.365 of 2008 : Nidhi Rastogi @ Supriya Rastogi Vs. State of U.P.

The petition also challenges order dated 15.12.2008 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.)., Lucknow in Case No.133 of 2008 : Nidhi Rastogi Vs. Bankey Bihari Rastogi, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

3. The case relates to the year 2009 and the court can no longer wait for the counsel.

The case is being heard with the assistance of Shri Siddarth Sinha, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. I have gone through the record of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that respondent no.2 Smt. Nidhi Rastogi wife of Nikhil Rastogi initiated criminal proceedings by way of filing criminal complaint Annexure No.1. After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short the ''Code'), the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2008, placed on record as Annexure No.5.

It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no.2 carried a revision against order Annexure No.5, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 28.11.2008 placed on record as Annexure No.6.

Short contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revisional court was bound in law to hear the petitioners who are the accused and who would be prejudiced by order passed by the revisional court. The petitioners/ accused however, were not arrayed as respondents and were not heard by the revisional court therefore the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 is rendered illegal.

It has been pointed out that after the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate, the Magistrate passed order dated 15.12.2008 summoning the petitioners to stand trial. The petitioners are aggrieved ; and prejudice has been caused to the rights of the petitioners.

6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of the Code.

7. Perusal of order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the revisional court demonstrates that the accused were neither arrayed as party to the revision nor were heard by the revisional court.

Provisions of Sections 397, 399 and 401 of the Code are required to be noticed before proceeding further. Sections 397, 399 and 401 of the Code read as under :-

"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

399. Sessions Judge' s powers of revision.

(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called