Judgment : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this criminal revision moved under Section 397 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been advanced to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.06.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in criminal revision no. 147 of 2007 titled as Rishipal Vs. State. It has also been prayed that order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar on dated 05.04.2007 refusing to issue direction for registration of First Information Report and investigation of the matter be restored. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that Smt. Chawali, mother Rishipal (respondent no. 2), died some time in 2003. It is alleged that all the revisionists before this Court prepared a forged WILL dated 05.08.2002 in order to succeed the land of Chawali while Rishipal, being son of deceased Chawali, had claimed succession over the land. This land was located at three villages viz. Jalal Mazra, Prempur, Fatehpur Junar. On the strength of said WILL, present revisionists got their names mutated from the court of Tehsildar vide order dated 21.07.2004 and that order is under challenge before the appellate court. 3. The dispute commenced when Rishipal moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on dated 14.03.2007 i.e. almost after three years of the order of Tehsildar aforementioned. He prayed for registration of case and investigation of the matter with the allegations that the present revisionists fabricated the WILL of Chawali. Learned Magistrate vide his order dated 05.04.2007 rejected the application and refused to issue any direction regarding registration of the matter and investigation of the same. 4. Feeling aggrieved Rishipal filed revision before the court of Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge while allowing the said revision observed that pendency of the litigation in civil court or in any court by itself is not a ground stunting to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal court. So he directed the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar to reconsider the matter. This time present revisionists felt disgruntled and have come up in the revision before this Court. 5. It has been apprised by learned counsel for the revisionists that one of the revisionists Surat Singh, has breathed his last during the pendency of this revision. 6. So he directed the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar to reconsider the matter. This time present revisionists felt disgruntled and have come up in the revision before this Court. 5. It has been apprised by learned counsel for the revisionists that one of the revisionists Surat Singh, has breathed his last during the pendency of this revision. 6. Argument put forth by learned counsel for the revisionists is that refusal by police from registration and investigation of particular case can drive the aggrieved person to move application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and where that application too is refused by the Magistrate to entertain then the redress is to file a complaint under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 684. He further relied upon another precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakhiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 907 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed the view that High Court should discourage the practice of filing the writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his First Information Report has not been registered by police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154 (3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers and if that is of no avail, under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. These both precedents do finds reference in full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 CRLJ 2278 . 8. Having gone through the ratio as discussed above, it can be noticed that Hon’ble Apex Court has issued these guidelines regarding filing of writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and no guideline for filing a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the court of Sessions against any such order of Magistrate has been dealt with, in these above precedents. However, one thing is certain that learned Sessions Judge while adjudicating the revision against such order of refusal made by the Magistrate, as in the instant case, prospective accused persons should have given an opportunity of hearing and this ratio has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/s Shivam Sundram Promoters (P) Ltd. and another reported in 2009 (65) ACC 629. In that case Hon’ble Apex Court while relying upon the principle of audi alteram partem was of the view that if the order of refusal to register the case and investigate the matter, is under challenge then prospective accused should have been given opportunity of hearing. 9. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2 has argued that under appeal wherein order of Tehsildar has been challenged, the thumb impressions of Chawali have been got examined through various experts. This fact is not to be meticulously seen by this court at the stage of adjudication of this revision and the question is left to be decided by the competent court. 10. In view of the above, impugned order dated 15.06.2007 is set aside and learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar is directed to restore the revision and asked the revisionist Rishipal to implead Ramesh Chandra and others as opposite parties in revision no. 147 of 2007 and render opportunity of hearing to them before adjudication and then decide the matter de novo on merits. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar is also directed to decide the matter very expeditiously. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the revision is disposed of.