1. Being aggrieved by the order arising out of order dated 17.7.2003 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Revision No. 7512003 parties being Ransingh Dudee v. Subodh Shukla arising out of private Criminal Complaint No. Unregistered dated 3.1.2003 [Major Ransingh v. Subodh and another] in which the trial Court CJM, Sagar by its order dated 25.1.2003 rejected the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code this revision has been preferred under section 397 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code and in alternative under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this application are thus. The complainant Ran Singh Dudee had one brother sepoy Hawasingh who was working in Jat Regiment and martyred on Indo-Pak border in Indo-Pak War. To create martyrdom (memorial) R.S. Dudee who was major applied to the Collector for allotment of some land. He made two applications one on 9th November and second on 14th December, 2000. The case was registered as Revenue File No. 12-A/19 (3) 2000-2001. The revisionist petitioner obtained certified copies of these applications. It was found that the contents of the applications were misleading. The revisionist sent these copies to the Court of Inquiry. Thereupon proceeding were initiated against Dudee and he was sentenced to imprisonment and presently he is in jail.

3. When the copies were sent to the Court of Inquiry Dudee claimed this against the revisionist and Rajendra Saini the Head Copyist of the Collectorate that since he had enmity and jealousy with him being of the same department he could have tampered and forged documents in conspiracy with Rajendra Saini. Therefore, he filed the private complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code requesting the Court to register a case under sections 109, 120B, 420, 471 and 500, Indian Penal Code.

4. The CJM, Sagar, dismissed the complaint mainly on two grounds. Firstly that there is a bar under section 195 (1) (b) to proceed against the revisionist and secondly the Revenue Court has not found that any of its record to has be tampered and forged, therefore, Revenue Court itself did not take any suitable action. Another ground raised for dismissal of the complaint by the Court was that since the inquiry was pending before the Military authorities, the complaint was premature.

5. Against the order R.S. Dudee preferred revision before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar under section 397, Criminal Procedure Code who in turn ordered that there was no bar under section 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code and directed the CJM, Sagar to take cognizance and rgister the case. It is argued by the petitioner that this order was passed against the revisionist without noticing him of the revision before the lower Revisional Court.

6. Now the revisionist has challenged this order. Parties heard, record perused.

7. Firstly, there was no need to summon the revisionist by the lower revisional Court. The complaint of R.S. Dudee was rejected under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. That time the revivisionist Subodh Shukla was not summoned, therefore, when Dudee preferred the revision before the lower revisional Court, under law Subodh Shukla had no right of hearing. No audience was required to be given to him. Sometimes, Sessions Court do give notice to the opposite party in proceeding under section 398, Criminal Procedure Code against the dismissal of complaints, but it is not the requirement of law as the proviso to that section governs only those cases in which the accused, having been summoned and evidence having been recorded, is discharged. On the other hand, mere is no provision for notice when it is the dismissal of complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. In case of Thankchala Mudali v. Ponnappa Mudali [AIR 1947 Mad. 389], Kanda Sesha Reddi v. Muthyala China Pullaiah [AIR 1958 AP 595] and in case of Dhondu Bapu Gajar v. Emperor [AIR 1929 Bom. 436] it was held that when a compl