ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Rehla P.S. No. 42 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1359 of 2010, including the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act, has been taken against the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17.05.2012 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2012 by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltongaj, by which order accepting the final form and treating the case, as complaint case, has been allowed and the trial court was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 3. It has been stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after institution of the first information report being Rehla P.S. Case No. 42 pf 2010, investigation culminated into submission of the final form. It has been further stated that after protest petition was filed, the same was treated as complainant case and the cognizance was taken. However, being aggrieved with the procedure adopted by learned Magistrate, Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2012 has been filed and the learned revisional court, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, has set aside the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate and has remanded the matter back and pursuant to which, cognizance has been taken, which is also under challenge in this application. 4. It has been stated that in terms of Section 399 Cr.P.C., 1973 it was the bounden duty of the revisional court to have called upon the petitioner for giving him an opportunity of hearing and the same having not been done, the order dated 17.05.2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for opp. Party No. 2, has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that after remand, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. He further submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was also rejected. 6. It appears from the submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he is basically aggrieved with the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by learned revisional court in Cr. Rev. He further submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was also rejected. 6. It appears from the submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he is basically aggrieved with the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by learned revisional court in Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2012, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before remanding the case back to the learned Magistrate. It appears that after police had submitted final form against the petitioner and on being aggrieved with that, the informant had filed protest petition, which was treated as complaint petition and consequent to the same, cognizance was taken. The informant was basically aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate by which learned Magistrate had not differed with the final form and had taken cognizance on the basis of conducting inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 in view of the protest petition filed by the informant. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was never noticed by the revisional court while considering the challenge made by the informant against the order 29.02.2012 and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 had been passed. 8. Section 399 Cr.P.C., 1973 lays down the powers of revision of Sessions Judge and in terms of Section 401(2), the power is applicable to that of the Sessions Judge and it has clearly been laid down that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. Learned revisional court has given a complete go bye to the provision laid down under Section 399 Cr.P.C., 1973 Merely by hearing the informant on the application filed by him, the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by learned Magistrate was set aside. The petitioner had a justifiable claim to be heard by the revisional court as even any order before the revisional court, if passed, without hearing, the petitioner would greatly prejudice his case. 9. In such circumstances, therefore, since impugned order dated 17.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2012 is in violation of principle of natural justice, as envisaged under Section 399(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 the same being unsustainable in the eye of law, is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. In such circumstances, therefore, since impugned order dated 17.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2012 is in violation of principle of natural justice, as envisaged under Section 399(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 the same being unsustainable in the eye of law, is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Consequently, order dated 13.07.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj Rehla by which cognizance of the offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act, has been taken against the petitioner is also quashed and set aside and learned revisional court is directed to pass afresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, expeditiously and preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. This application is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction.