JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this application, the accused in Sum. Criminal Case No. 655/2009, has prayed for exercising the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Court of Session in an application in revision preferred by non applicant no.1 i.e. original complainant in the said criminal case setting aside the dismissal of said case ordered by the trial Court vide order dated 14.11.2011. 4. Considering the short controversy involved in the matter, it is wholly unnecessary to narrate in detail subject matters involved in said case, except stating that non applicant no.1 made a complaint to the trial court of the applicant having committed an offence under section 500 and 501 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the verification statement vide order dated 14.11.2011 dismissed said complaint. The non applicant no.1 challenged said order by filing an application in revision before the Court of Session without making applicant party to said application. The said application was allowed by the court of Session vide order dated 27.02.2012 and matter was remanded to the trial Court for disposal of the complaint, in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Advait Manohar, learned counsel for the applicant, by inviting attention to the decision in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and ors.; (2012) 10 SCC 517 : (2012 ALL MR (Cri) 4105 (S.C.)] has submitted that the order impugned in the petition was passed by the Court of Session without making the applicant as party to the said revision. It is submitted that the decision pointed reveals that after dismissal of the complaint by the trial court, the proceedings against applicant/accused having permanently culminated, any order to the detriment of applicant could not have been passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard in the application in revision as envisaged under section 401 (2) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that admittedly the applicant being not made party to said application in revision, the order of restoration of the complaint passed by the Court of Session at the back of the applicant and having effect of reopening the proceedings against him though in accordance with law, is an adverse order affecting him. It was urged that such an order cannot be legally sustained. The learned counsel contended that in such a state of affair, the application deserves to be allowed by exercising the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the legally unsustainable order passed in derogation of the law deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application be restored with a direction to the Sessions Court to decide the said application in revision afresh, in accordance with law and in the event of said court being of a view that an adverse order is warranted against the applicant, then for giving him hearing as contemplated under section 401 (2) of Cr.P.C. before passing any such order. 6. Mr. Parijat Pande, learned counsel for non applicant no.1, after considering the decision to which attention was drawn by learned counsel for the applicant, fairly submitted that such legal position as canvassed emerges out of decision pointed. 7. Resultantly, the issue involved in this petition is apparently covered by decision of the apex court pointed, as admittedly, the applicant was not made a party to the said application in revision and the order of dismissal of proceeding by the trial court was passed at his back, the said order deserves to be and accordingly is quashed and set aside. 8. The Criminal Revision Application No.15/2012 stands restored to the file of Sessions Court, Wardha. The Sessions Court shall decide the same, in accordance with law as laid down in the decision in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and anr. referred here-in-above. 9. Needless to add that Sessions Court shall bear in mind that in the event of any adverse order is likely to be passed in said revision, duty is cast upon the Court of Session to give hearing to applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section 401 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Application allowed.