Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) In this application petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.12.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014, whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar has allowed the revision application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and had remanded the matter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioners have also aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 188 of 2014 whereby and where under after the remand by the revisional court cognizance has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 504, 420, 467, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the First Information Report was instituted against the petitioners as they were named in the First Information Report and the investigation culminated in submission of final form which was accepted by the learned court below on 15.09.2014 and the protest petition was treated as a complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no. 2 had preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge who had set aside the order dated 15.09.2014 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were not heard prejudice has been caused to them and in support of his contention he has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 517. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to the remand the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 also does not disclose any reason or any material collected in course of investigation and without assigning the same cognizance has straightaway been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that the impugned order in view of the aforesaid facts deserve to be quashed and set aside.;