- (1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of the order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari setting aside the order dated 25.4.2009 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari vide which the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Smt. Sharda Devi was dismissed. Through the impugned order the petitioners were ordered to be summoned for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Nirmala Devi- petitioner No. 1 got registered an FIR No. 144 dated 23.6.2007 under Sections 452, 323, 34 IPC against Sharda Devi-respondent No. 2, Krishan Kumar, Sarla and Sumitra. In the said FIR, after investigation challan was presented against Sharda Devi-respondent No. 2, Krishan Kumar and Sarla while Sumitra was kept in column No. 2. As a counter blast to the registration of an FIR, one criminal complaint No. 140-RT dated 30.7.2007 was filed by Smt. Sharda Devi against the petitioners Satyabir and Bir Singh. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.4.2009, on consideration of the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant dismissed the complaint being devoid of any merit, as it was a clear case of counter blast against the petitioners. Against this order Criminal Revision RBT No. 09 of 2009 was filed by complainant Smt. Sharda Devi respondent No. 2. This revision petition was decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari vide order dated 21.4.2010 by holding therein that the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 25.4.2009 was grossly and manifestly erroneous and while setting aside the said order observed that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners i.e. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ravi Kumar and they were ordered to be summoned for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. It is at this stage that the present petition has been filed by the present petitioners being aggrieved of the order.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned revisional Court could not pass an order without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in the light of the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C. which mandates that if an order under this Section is to be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person he is to be given an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence, which has not been done. He contends that the petitioners were arrayed as respondents but despite that being so the learned revisional Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is in total violation of the statutory provisions and, therefore, cannot be sustained.;