JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-1-92, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, by which the learned Special Judge allowed the revision petition filed by accused Dal Chand and others and set-aside the order dated 23-9-89, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-respondents. 2. Petitioner Bhura, on 6-11-86, lodged an FIR at Police Station, Mawli, against the accused for killing his father Lalu. The police, after necessary investigation, presented a Final Report. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, did not accept the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer and by his order dated 23-9-89 took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 147 and 302 IPC. The accused, aggrieved with the order dated 23-9-89 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, taking cognizance against them, preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the learned Special Judge by his order dated 23-1-92 and set-aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the accused. It is against this order that the petitioner-complainant has filed the present revision petition. 3. The only grievance, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though the police filed the Final Report in the matter but the cognizance was taken against the accused on a protest petition filed by the petitioner and it is only at his instance that the Final Report was not accepted and the cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Being a complainant, he was, therefore, a necessary party to the revision petition and no order could have been passed dropping the proceedings without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not necessary to go into the merit of the case because the order is going to be quashed on account of not giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-complainant. Admittedly, the order was passed by the learned Special Judge of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Udaipur, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the complainant-petitioner. 5. It is not necessary to go into the merit of the case because the order is going to be quashed on account of not giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-complainant. Admittedly, the order was passed by the learned Special Judge of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Udaipur, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the complainant-petitioner. The order passed by the learned lower Court, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. In the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the order dated 23-1-92, passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, is set-aside and the learned Special Judge is directed to re-decide the revision petition after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-complainant as well as to the accused- respondents. Till the revision petition is decided, the accused- respondents may not be arrested.Petition allowed. *******