JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.RC. against the order dated 05.06.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sawaimadhopur in Criminal Revision No. 127/2001 (128/2001) whereby the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur dated 30.07.2001 in criminal Case No. 384/1994 has been set aside and accused-respondents have been discharged. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case, on the complaint of the petitioner, after investigation the police submitted a final report on which the learned trial Court on filing a protest petition proceeded in the matter and recorded pre- charge evidence and thereafter framed charges against the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC. The order passed was challenged before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court vide order dated 05.06.2000 set aside the order framing charge against the accused-respondents without hearing the complainant. Hence this revision petition. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of provisions contained in Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. it was mandatory on the part of the Revisional Court to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner before passing impugned order in the matter. The learned counsel in support of his submission has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court reported in 2002 (1) R.Cr.D. 172 (Raj.), Hazi Mohd. Shafi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. . 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the Revisional Court. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of accused-respondents in spite of service. The learned counsel for the respondents, who had filed the power also did not appear to argue the case today. 5. After having considered the submissions made before me and after carefully examining the authority cited by the learned counsel, I find that it was incumbent upon the Revisional Court to have heard the complainant in the case. In para No. 3 of the decision cited by the learned counsel 2002 (1) R.Cr.D. 172 (Raj.), Hazi Mohd. Shafi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , this Court while considering the matter came before this Court In the similar circumstances has observed as under "Sect. In para No. 3 of the decision cited by the learned counsel 2002 (1) R.Cr.D. 172 (Raj.), Hazi Mohd. Shafi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , this Court while considering the matter came before this Court In the similar circumstances has observed as under "Sect. 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides "no order under this section shall be made to prejudice the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or through counsel in his own defence. The word "any other person" includes the complainant. Thus, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant the revisional Court committed apparent error in setting aside the order passed by learned Trial Court." 6. In view of requirement of Section 401 of the Cr.PC. and also in view of the facts of the present case wherein it is alleged that the complainant's property was mortgaged by the accused-respondents, therefore, the Revisional Court was required to hear the complainant also before passing impugned order. It appears that before the Revisional Court, complainant was not made a party, therefore, the revision petition needs to be accepted and the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court requires to be set aside. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated 05.06.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sawaimadhopur in Criminal Revision No. 127/2001, 128/2001 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Revisional Court with a direction to hear the revision petition afresh after notice. to the petitioner in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******