JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No.209 of 2019. 2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. A revisional application was preferred before the learned Sessions Court by the de facto complainant challenging an order of discharge. After hearing the parties, the learned revisional Court came to a finding that the revision is maintainable at the instance of a de facto complainant when he seeks to challenge an order of discharge. Surprisingly, the revisional Court also acceded to a prayer made by the State and since the revisionist did not place any objection that the State may be allowed to become co-petitioner along with the revisionist. Such a procedure is unheard of under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant/opposite party submits as follows. It is settled law that a revision can be preferred by an aggrieved party against an order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The de facto complainant is very much an aggrieved party here in the event he wishes to challenge an order of discharge of the accused. As regards the direction to allow the State to become a co-petitioner along with the revisionist, such practice is indeed unheard of in criminal law. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State adopts the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition. 7. The de facto complainant is indeed an aggrieved party in case an accused is discharged. Therefore, in such event he shall have every right to prefer a revision. There is no illegality in the impugned order so far as this issue is concerned. 8. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for any method by which the State, an opposite party in a revision preferred by the de facto complainant, can be co-opted as a revisionist. This is not permissible in law. The impugned order is set aside and modified to this extent. 9. 8. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for any method by which the State, an opposite party in a revision preferred by the de facto complainant, can be co-opted as a revisionist. This is not permissible in law. The impugned order is set aside and modified to this extent. 9. However, the State does have an independent right of preferring a revision if it is aggrieved by the order of discharge of the accused. 10. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 11. The learned revisional Court is requested to dispose of the revisional application as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.