JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners (aggrieved persons) against the order dated 1.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria in revision whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria dated 31.7.2008 and has discharged the accused respondents from the charge of offence under Sections 326 and 326/149 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this matter there was ample material on record as per which the accused persons were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 326 and 326/149 I.P.C. He contends that the petitioner Kuldeep Singh has received an incised wound on the phalynx of little finger whereby the left little finger has been completely chopped off and thus the accused were definitely responsible for causing grievous hurt by a dangerous sharp weapon and thus they were rightly charged for the said offence. Learned counsel submits that the Revisional Court without considering the injury report of Kuldeep Singh in the right perspective and whilst deciding the revision filed by the accused as if he was finally deciding the case has discharged the accused from the offence under Sections 326 and 149 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners were aggrieved persons in this case and as such they were entitled to be heard by the Revision Court before any interference was made for quashing the charge by virtue of Section 399 read with Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. 3. This Court had issued notice to the respondents accused but despite service, none has put in appearance. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also supports the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and agrees that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Revisional Court for fresh consideration of the revision on merits. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Revisional Court as the petitioners who are the aggrieved persons were not provided with an opportunity of hearing in the revision filed by the accused against the order framing charges. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order dated 1.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Sangaria in Cr. Revision No. 66/2008 is hereby quashed and the revision is directed to be restored to its original number and thereafter the Revisional Court shall intimate the concerned persons as ell as the petitioners and then proceed to hear and decide the revision ' accordance with law. The stay application is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******