JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 12.10.2017 passed by Special Judge Robbery Affected Area, Bharatpur (Raj.) whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.12.2012 & 14.01.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur was rejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner the complainantpetitioner filed F.I.R. against accused-respondent. Police submitted negative final report. No notice was issued to the complainant and the Magistrate accepted the negative final report. 3. It is argued that the Revisional Court observed that notices have not been issued by the Court to the complainant but still the Revisional Court dismissed the Revision Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Papaiah & Ors. , (1997) 7 SCC 614 , wherein Apex Court held that Magistrate must give notice and opportunity of hearing to the informant before accepting the final report and closing the case. It further observed that issuance of notice to the informant by the investigating agency is not a substitute for notice required to be given by the Magistrate. Apex Court remitted the case to the Magistrate for its disposal in accordance with law. 5. Reliance has also been placed on Krishnan & Anr. vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. , (1997) 4 SCC 241 , wherein Apex Court held that though second Revision by the same person is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. but the same has to be exercised fairly. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has opposed the Miscellaneous Petition. It is contended that second Revision by the same party is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 7. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of S.K. Forjing vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 2 NIJ 67 . 8. It is contended that notice of filing of negative final report was served on the complainant. Complainant did not appear before the Court to file protest petition, hence, the Court had not committed any error in accepting negative final report. 9. I have considered the contentions. 10. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that accusedrespondent took loan for purchasing Tata Truck. He took loan of Rs.7,31,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) on 25.08.2008. 9. I have considered the contentions. 10. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that accusedrespondent took loan for purchasing Tata Truck. He took loan of Rs.7,31,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) on 25.08.2008. Installments were not paid in time and as on 29.03.2010 a sum of Rs.6,44,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Forty Four Thousnad Only) was outstanding against the accused. Notice was issued by the petitioner on 01.04.2010 and petition was also filed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The accused filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum to the effect that the vehicle has been taken from him forcefully. The said complaint now stands rejected by the Consumer Court. F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner on 04.11.2012 alleging that hypothecated vehicle has been misappropriated by the accused-respondent. Police submitted negative final report on 28.12.2012. Court vide order dated 14.01.2013 accepted the negative final report. It is an admitted position that no notice was issued by the Magistrate to the complaiant with regard to filing of the protest petition. It is the case of the petitioner that his blank signatures were obtained by the Police and subsequently the same is shown to be service of notice on filing of negative final report. 11. Be that as it may, the Apex Court in Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Papaiah & Ors. (supra) has clearly laid down that Magistrate must give notice and opportunity of hearing to the informant before accepting the final report and closing the case. It further observed that issuance of notice to the informant by the investigating agency is not a substitute for notice required to be given by the Magistrate. 12. Since notice has not been given to the complainant by the Magistrate, the order of the Magistrate accepting negative final report is bad in law. 13. The Revisional Court has observed that no notice was given but still has dismissed the Revision Petition. It is true that Sub- Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. bars the second revision by the same person and this Court has also dismissed the second Revision filed by the same person but clearly it is true that in exceptional cases, to secure the ends of justice, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in exceptional case as held by the Apex Court in Krishnan & Anr. vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. (supra). vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. (supra). 14. Present is the case where the complainant was not served notice by the Magistrate before accepting negative final report. He was thus not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition against the negative final report. The acceptance of the negative final report without affording opportunity to the petitioner has resulted into injustice to the petitioner. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it proper to exercise the inherent powers. 15. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 16. The orders passed by the Courts below are quashed and setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate to afford opportunity to the petitioner to file protest petition and to decide the same in accordance with law. 17. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 25.07.2019. 18. Copy of this order be sent to the Magistrate.