R.M. Lodha, J. — Leave granted.

2. The sole question for considerfation is, whether a suspect is entitled to hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by the complainant challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Code’).

3. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, respondent no. 1, filed a criminal complaint on 15.5.2004 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (for short ‘CJM’) against Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Paresh Lavjibhai Patel, appellants, alleging that they had pre-planned a conspiracy; created forged documents bearing signatures of the complainant, his father and uncle, two sons of his uncle and his elder brother and have used the said documents as true and genuine by producing the same before the District Registrar, Cooperative Society, Nanpura, and by making false representation obtained registration of Indoregency Cooperative Housing Society Limited and by doing so the accused (appellants) have caused financial loss and physical and mental agony to the complainant and his family members and have deceived the complainant and his family members by obtaining huge financial advantage by taking possession of the complainant’s property. It was, thus, alleged that the appellants have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC.

4. The CJM in exercise of his power under Section 202 of the Code by his order dated 18.6.2004 directed the enquiry to be made by the Police Inspector, Umra Police Station, into the allegations made in the complaint and submit his report within thirty days therefrom.

5. The Investigating Officer investigated into the matter and submitted ‘C’ Summary Report. In the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the disputes between the parties were of civil nature and no offence was made out.

6. The CJM on 16.4.2005 accepted the ‘C’ Summary Report submitted by the Investigating Officer. That order has been challenged by the Complainant in a criminal revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code in the Gujarat High Court.

7. The appellants having come to know of the above criminal revision application made an application for joining them as party respondents so that they can be heard in the matter.

8. On 5.8.2005, the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the application made by the appellants. It is from this order that present appeal has arisen.

9. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel for respondent no. l.

10. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the plain language of Section 401(2) of the Code entitles the appellants to be heard in the criminal revision application filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging the order of the CJM. According to learned senior counsel, appellants have a right to be heard in the revision application filed by the complainant as no order could be made to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard under Section 401(2) of the Code. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the result of acceptance of the ‘C’ Summary Report is that criminal proceedings launched by the complainant have come to an end and if the revision application 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 appellants and before any such prejudicial order is passed, the appellants ought to be heard. In support of the above contentions, learned senior counsel relied upon decisions of this Court in P. Sundarrajan and others v. R. Vidhya Sekar (2004) 13 SCC 472, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited