( 1 ) BY this petition, under Section 482 cr. P. C. the petitioner has challenged the validity of order of learned Additional Sessions judge dated 22nd September, 2005 whereby the learned Additional Sessions judge allowed the revision petition of respondent no. 2 and reversed the order of metropolitan Magistrate holding that prima facie no case under Section 500 read with section 34 IPC was made out from the complaint. The learned Additional Sessions judge observed that it was a fit case for summoning the accused. The Complaint of respondent no. 2 was restored and directions were given to summon the accused under sections 500/34 IPC. ( 2 ) THE Contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not heard by the learned additional Sessions Judge before passing the order. The revision was entertained without making petitioners as a party and without hearing them and an order adverse to the petitioners was passed by the additional Sessions Judge, therefore was liable to be set aside. The counsel for petitioners relied upon proviso to Section 398 of Cr. P. C. and Section 401 (2) Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. The learned metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that prima facie no case was made out for summoning the accused and asking them to face the trial. Against this order of Metropolitan Magistrate respondent no. 2/complainant preferred a revision which was allowed by the Court of additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order. ( 4 ) IF a person has not been summoned as an accused he has no locus standi in that case and cannot claim a right of hearing and participation in the proceedings of the case. The Principles of natural justice do not demand that a person who has not been summoned as an accused should also be heard before he is summoned. It cannot be stated to be unfair to launch criminal proceedings against a person without first hearing him. Section 401 (2) is not attracted in the case where accused has not been summoned and has not bee charge-sheered. It cannot be stated to be unfair to launch criminal proceedings against a person without first hearing him. Section 401 (2) is not attracted in the case where accused has not been summoned and has not bee charge-sheered. A perusal of Section 401 (2) would show that an accused is required to be heard only where he has been discharged and the revision is against the order of discharge. An accused can be discharged only when he has been summoned to face the charge and the Court after hearing the accused considers that there was no sufficient evidence to frame charge. If the accused has not been summoned by the court, the proviso to Section 398 would also not be attracted. It only provides that accused should be given an opportunity for showing cause only if revision is against discharge, of accused. Where a complainant prefers a revision against the order of metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing his complaint without summoning accused the accused cannot claim benefit of Section 398 proviso or Section 401 (2) Cr. P. C. This court in J. K. International Vs. State 2002 (1) JCC 489 had held that in a case where complaint is dismissed. In default for non-appearance of complainant during the enquiry, at the pre-summoning stage, notice in revision against such order to the accused persons is not mandatory and that notice would be required only when the accused persons has been discharged after summoning. ( 5 ) IN view of my discussions above, I find no force in the petition. The Petition is hereby dismissed.