ORDER : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. "Before admission an elaborate arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner by Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, that Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. has no application to the respondents herein from the wording of '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", with the submission that there is no accused on record covered by the impugned dismissal/rejection order of the private complaint of the complainant in following the procedure contemplated under Section 199 to 204 read with 190 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC; as instead of rejection under Section 203 Cr.P.C., the lower Court went wrong in dismissing/rejecting the private complaint by referring to Section 200 Cr.P.C. though Section 200 to 202 Cr.P.C. speaks of the procedure to be followed on private complaint in recording the sworn statement unless a public servant and examination of witnesses present, if any, or being summoned, as the case may be, and it is only on perusal of such private complaint with sworn statement by examination of the complainant and other witnesses, if any, to apply mind either to take cognizance for issuing summons either under" Section 204 Cr.P.C. or to reject the private complaint, if no case made out to take cognizance under Section 203 Cr.P.C., that too by assigning reasons and the impugned order per se not sustainable; and in the revision even arrayed the prospective or proposed accused as co-respondents, no notice is necessary, for they are not the persons being affected within the meaning of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and the revision is straight away to be allowed for even learned Public Prosecutor representing State is only to assist the Court and a proforma party for-State is no any way aggrieved or can say as an aggrieved. 2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 3. In fact, the wording of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. speaks of not only accused, but also other person. 2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 3. In fact, the wording of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. speaks of not only accused, but also other person. The contention that the other person arises where it is at post cognizance stage accused impugned without array of complainant or the de facto complainant, as the case may be, cannot be readily accepted in the absence of showing any authority to sustain for other person is not qualified as only complainant or de facto complainant or victim and not the prospective accused. No doubt, there is a force in the submission that what is contemplated of order to be made to the prejudice of other person is only to the limited extent of, if at all to support the order' of dismissal/rejection showing its sustainability and not beyond. Even therefrom notice is, this Court feels, just and necessary, before deciding the revision on merits. 4. In fact, the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others (2012) 10 SCC 517 in a revision maintained against dismissal of the private complaint by the complainant against the prospective accused referring to Sections 397, 401(2), 200, 202, 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. observed opportunity of hearing to accused/suspect is necessary by drawn distinction between hearing of accused at pre-cognizance stage before trial Magistrate is not contemplated as different to post-cognizance stage and at pre-cognizance stage not entitled to participate in the proceedings much less to be heard as per the wording of Section 202 Cr.P.C., as right of accused arises only on the stage of issuance of process and before that, have no right of hearing and before that, accused has no locus standi to participate. 5. Having regard to the above, by left open all contentions notice is ordered, while asking the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State to get any instructions, to serve personal notice to the respondents (who are no doubt not accused as on date) to the extent indicated above for their prospective participation, post on 17-4-2019."