AMAR SARAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajen­dra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate. By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged an order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge,: Bahraich al­lowing the revision against the order dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich whereby the learned Magistrate had decided to treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C as a complaint case.
(2.) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners mat the said order had been passed by the Re visional Court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-accused and the same is in viola­tion of the decision of the Apex Court in Raghu Raj Singh, Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and another, 2009 (65) ACC 629 (SC) = (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 801. No doubt, it has been observed in the said decision "relying on section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the High Courts' power of revi­sion that no order can be passed to the prejudice of the accused or any other per­son unless he is given.an opportunity of being heard either personally or through pleader in his own defence.
(3.) HERE , it is argued by learned Coun­sel for the applicants that as the learned Magistrate had only directed treating the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C as a complaint because in his view the allega­tions of rape against the Devar and others only appeared to be a private infra-family dispute between the parties, the Sessions Judge erred in reversing the said order on 14.10.2009 when he directed the Magistrate to reconsider his decision in the light of the observations in his order, and it was further contended that the Sessions Judge ought not to have passed the said order without af­fording an opportunity of hearing to the ac­cused-applicants.;