ORDER : Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.12.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar has allowed the revision application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and had remanded the matter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioners have also aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.188 of 2014 whereby and whereunder after the remand by the revisional court cognizance has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 504, 420, 467, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the First Information Report was instituted against the petitioners as they were named in the First Information Report and the investigation culminated in submission of final form which was accepted by the learned court below on 15.09.2014 and the protest petition was treated as a complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no. 2 had preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge who had set aside the order dated 15.09.2014 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were not heard prejudice has been caused to them and in support of his contention he has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. versus Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 517 [ : 2013 (1) JLJR (SC) 151]. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to the remand the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 also does not disclose any reason or any material collected in course of investigation and without assigning the same cognizance has straightaway been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to the remand the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 also does not disclose any reason or any material collected in course of investigation and without assigning the same cognizance has straightaway been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that the impugned order in view of the aforesaid facts deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2., has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has submitted that an illegality has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar while accepting the final form which was challenged by the opposite party no. 2 in Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014 and the said error/ illegality was corrected by the learned revisional court. It has been submitted that no prejudice were caused to the petitioners since the learned revisional court had merely remanded the matter back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar after correcting the illegality which has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in his order dated 15.09.2014. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 thus submits that there being no error or illegality in the impugned orders dated 09.12.2014 and 13.06.2016, therefore this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears that initially a complaint case was instituted against the petitioners and the same having been forwarded to the Police u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014 was instituted. The Police after investigation had submitted final form on 15.09.2014. Upon submission of the final form the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has issued notice to the opposite party no. 2 and on receipt of the said notice the opposite party no. 2 had filed a protest petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar vide order dated 15.09.2014 had accepted the final form and had directed that the protest petition shall be treated as a complaint petition. Being aggrieved by the acceptance of the final form by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar without assigning any reason the opposite party no. 2 has preferred a revision application being Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014 which was allowed on 09.12.2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, pursuant to which cognizance was taken on 13.06.2016. Being aggrieved by the acceptance of the final form by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar without assigning any reason the opposite party no. 2 has preferred a revision application being Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014 which was allowed on 09.12.2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, pursuant to which cognizance was taken on 13.06.2016. It is not in dispute that after the order dated 15.09.2014 was challenged before the learned revisional court the petitioners being accused were never noticed by the learned revisional court and merely on perusal of the case diary and on hearing the opposite party no. 2 the order dated 15.09.2014 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. versus Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. (supra) it was held as follows :- “48. In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the allegations of having committed the offence have been made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203-although it is at preliminary stage-nevertheless results in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. The right given to “accused” or “the other person” under Section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is pre-process stage or post process stage.” “53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled.” 6. The petitioners were initially accused at the time of the institution of the complaint case but on acceptance of the final report they were virtually discharged from the criminal prosecution. However, in view of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014 the matter having been remanded back to the learned court below fresh order of cognizance was passed and the petitioners were summoned. The impugned order dated 09.12.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014 has caused great prejudice to the petitioners as they were not permitted to put forward their case in support of the final form which was submitted by the Investigating Officer in their favour. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not been heard prior to passing of the impugned order dated 09.12.2014 such order being not sustainable in the eye of law is, hereby, quashed and set aside. As a consequence the impugned order dated 09.12.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 208 of 2014 the other impugned order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar is also quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned revisional court to pass a fresh order on the revision application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 challenging the order dated 15.09.2014. While considering the revision application the learned revisional court is directed to hear the respective parties before arriving at a conclusion and the said exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 7. This application stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.