JAS RAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under s. 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 12. 7. 1988 whereby the learned Judge while accepting the revision petition filed by non-petitioners No. 2 to 4. set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur and ordered that while considering the Final Report submitted by the Police for taking cognizance, the learned trial court should allow the accused to participate in the hearing. It is against this order that this petition has been filed.
(2.) MR. I. R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this procedure is not provided by law as per a decision of this Court in Raghunath V. State of Rajasthan (1) wherein this Court considered the decision in Hardeosingh Sandhu V. State of Rajasthan (2) and held, Hardeo-singh Sandhu's case (supra) does not lay down the correct law. Hardeosingh's case (supra) was followed by this Court in Jagdish V. State (3), but as stated above, that view was overruled in Raghunath's case (supra ). The decision in Raghunath's case (supra) was followed by this Court in Tejumal V. State of Raj (4) wherein it has been held that the accused has no right to be heard when the F. R. is taken up for consideration. Mr. O. P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners has submitted that his case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Hardeosingh's case (supra ). His contention is that he has not craved for any notice from the Court. He has put in appearance voluntarily and, therefore, he has a right to be heard. In Hardeosingh's case (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held on the basis of a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandra Deo V. Prakash Chandra Bose (5) which was relied on in Budhi Prakash V. K. C. Sharma (6), at the stage of enquiry under ss. 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person who is suspected of the commission of the offence and against whom an inquiry is being made to arrive at the conclusion as to whether cognizance of an offence against him should be taken or not and a process should be issued or not has no right of hearing. In this case too, in para 4, it has been mentioned that in the case before the Court, no enquiry under ss. 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. was contemplated whereas in the present case, when the complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation and a negative report was submitted, the complainant filed a protest petition and on that, an enquiry under ss. 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. has been initiated and certain statements have been recorded and, therefore, even on that count, this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. I have already considered the decision given in Hardeosingh's case while deciding Raghunath's case (supra) and, therefore, I need not dwell in detail about it. In the result, I accept this revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No, 1, Jodhpur dated 12. 7. 1988 and direct the learned trial court to proceed with the case in the light of the decision of this Court in Raghunath V. State of Raj. (supra) and Tejumal's case (supra ). Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower court forthwith. .;