JUDGMENT Hon’ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 7.2.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, City-I, Agra whereby accepting the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer without affording on opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. 2. The facts giving rise to the revision are these : The sister of revisionist was married to the opposite party on 5.12.1983. Few months after the marriage the complainant’s sister came to know about the extra-marital relationship of her husband/opposite party with the receptionist working in his clinic. The opposite party purchased four LIC Policies with insurance coverage of Rupees two lacs in the name of his wife. On 5.10.1984 a letter from opposite party informing that complainant’s sister was having chest pain, was received. The Opposite party came to Delhi alongwith his wife and both of them left for Agra in the morning of 7.10.1984. On 10.10.1984 the revisionist received a letter from his sister that she was being harassed by the opposite party (her husband) for divorce. On 10.10.1984 a letter of opposite party informing about serious illness of complainant’s sister was received. On 13.10.1984 the complainant alongwith his brother and uncle went to Agra to call on his ailing sister and was told by her that she was subjected to brutal assault. On 16.10.1984 again a letter was received from her informing that she could be murdered any day. The opposite party telephonically informed that it was a case of kidney failure. On 17.10.1984 the complainant alongwith brothers and uncle again went to Agra and found his sister lying in bed. The medicines prescribed by Dr. M.P. Mehrotra were not given to her by the opposite party and she died the same day at 9.30 p.m. After investigation final report was submitted by the police. The final report was accepted by the Magistrate vide order dated 7.2.1986. 3. Heard Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record. 4. The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that no notices were issued to the applicant, the maker of the First Information Report. 3. Heard Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record. 4. The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that no notices were issued to the applicant, the maker of the First Information Report. The learned Counsel placing reliance on the decisions in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, AIR 1985 SC 1285 and Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005 SCC (Cri) 404, argued that it was mandatory to serve notice upon the complainant when the Magistrate decided not to take cognizance of the offence and accepted the final report. 5. The Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh’s case (supra) emphasized on the desirability of intimation being given to the informant when a report made under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C. is under consideration and held as follows : “There can, therefore, be no doubt that when on a consideration of the report made by the officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard to that he can made his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.” 6. In Pakhando and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (43) ACC 1096, a Division Bench of this Court held that where the Magistrate receives final report he may agree with the conclusions arrived at by the police to accept the report and drop the proceedings but before doing so he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The legal position is well settled that if the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance on the final report submitted under sub-section (2) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. the first informant must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the acceptance of final report. The revisionist has categorically stated in para 3 of the ground of revision that notice was not given to him by the Magistrate before the acceptance of final report. The averments made in para 3 have not been controverted by the opposite party or the learned A.G.A. by filing counter-affidavit. There is no reason for disbelieving the contention that notice was not sent to the applicant before the acceptance of the final report. The applicant having been deprived of the opportunity being heard at the time of consideration of report and report having been accepted without hearing him, the impugned order is against the settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside. The revision succeeds. 7. The Criminal Revision is allowed. The order dated 7.2.1986 is set aside. The case is sent back to the Judicial Magistrate, City-I, Agra for reconsideration of final report after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist-first informant. ————