Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 30/2013, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 53/2012 has been set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 before the trial court, the FIR No. 104/2011 has been registered at Police Station, Desuri, District Pali on 16.11.2011. After thorough investigation, the police has filed charge -sheet against the respondent No. 3 -Rakesh Yadav S/o Nanag Ram Yadav for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 323 and 406 IPC. The trial court thereafter took cognizance against the respondent No. 3 -Rakesh Yadav for the aforesaid offices on 07.01.2012. Later on, the respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 190(1)(B) Cr.P.C. and prayed that cognizance be also taken against Nanag Ram, Kamla Yadav, Ramji Lal, Anju Yadav and Maya Yadav. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18.04.2013 while observing that as the cognizance has been taken against accused Rakesh Yadav on 07.01.2012 the same order can not be reviewed, hence, the application filed by the respondent No. 2 for taking cognizance against other persons is liable to be dismissed. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the trial court, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition before the revisional court and the same was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 16.07.2014, whereby the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the trial court has been set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the revisional court has ex -facie illegal as before passing the said order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. It is contended that as per the provisions of sub -section (2) of section 401 Cr.P.C., the accused persons are entitled for an opportunity of being heard before passing of any order by the Sessions Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. reported in : 2013 CRI.L.J. 144 and Bal Manohar Jalan Vs. Sunil Paswan reported in : (2012) 10 SCC 517.;