JUDGMENT Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - This Misc. Petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner challenging the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the revisional Court whereby the order of cognizance passed against non-petitioner No. 2 has been quashed and set aside.2. After filing of the challan for the offence under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C., the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance vide his order dated 26.8.2000. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is that it was necessary for the revisional Court to have afforded opportunity to the complaint before deciding the revision petition seeking to challenge the order of cognizance. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the case of Bodu Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2002(2) RCC 557. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor could not controvert the fact that the complainant petitioner was not heard by the revisional Court. As a matter of fact, he was even not made a party by the non-petitioner while filing the revision petition before the said Court. No one has appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2, despite of service.4. As has been consistently held by the High Court that while considering the revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., against an order of cognizance then a notice be given so that the informant has an opportunity to defend his case before the revision petition is finally decided.5. In view of the above, and considering the principle of law in the matter, I deem it just and proper to allow this Misc. Petition and the order passed by the revisional Court dated 30.11.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. The matter is remitted to the revisional Court with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant petitioner. Revision allowed. *******