Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGA as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.9.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bahraich. Submission, in short, on behalf of the Petitioners is that an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the opposite party No. 2 against the Petitioners. The investigation followed in pursuance to the FIR lodged and the police submitted a final report. After submission of the final report, a protest petition was filed by the opposite party No. 2 and the said protest petition was rejected. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge while hearing the revision set aside the order passed by the Magistrate dated 25.4.2009 and directed the Magistrate to hear the matter again.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners are the prospective accused and they ought to have been heard by the revisional court before passing any order against them and they should have been arrayed as party in the case, but that was not done and the revision was decided ex -parte. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. and Anr., 2009 (1) JIC 491 (SC).;