JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 2. This application has been filed for quashing order dated 4.12.2018 (Annexure 2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in GR No. 620 of 2016/ Brahmpur (Krishna Braham) Police Station Case No. 46 of 2016 dated 22.3.2016 by which the Court below accepted final form without notice/hearing the informant and took cognizance on non FIR accused under sections 32, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure 8) passed in Revision No. 32/2019 by which revision filed against aforesaid order dated 4.12.2018 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Buxar. 3. As per the prosecution case, while the informant was at his home, FIR named accused persons including the petitioner and 10 to 12 unknown persons came there. Thereafter, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 opened fire causing injury on the head, shoulder and other body parts of the informant/the petitioner. Accused persons also entered the house of the informant and took away Attache containing clothes, jewellry and cash. 4. On the basis of fard beyan, Brahmpur (Krishna Braham) Police Station Case No. 46 of 2016 was instituted for the offence punishable under sections 448, 341, 326, 307, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Police after investigation submitted final form bearing No.44/2018 dated 31.5.2018 and not sent up opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, whereas against one non FIR accused Vidyawati Devi w/o Shiojee Thakur police filed charge sheet against her. Pursuant to submission of final form, court below took cognizance of the offence against said Vidyawati Devi for the offence under sections 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below while accepting final form against opposite party nos. 2 to 4 did not notice the informant or provided him opportunity of hearing which is in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. It is also the case of the petitioner that the revisonal court while passing order dated 17.12.2019 has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and another, reported in (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 537 and has just passed a mechanical order without application of mind. 6. Commissioner of Police and another, reported in (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 537 and has just passed a mechanical order without application of mind. 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 as also the State opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. They submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court at this stage as order taking cognizance has been passed after considering the entire materials. 7. From bare perusal of order dated 4.12.2018 (Annexure 2), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in GR No. 620 of 2016, it is apparent that the Court below accepted final form against opposite party no. 2 to 4 without hearing or giving notice to the informant which is in complete violation of the principle of the Natural Justice as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Bhagwant Singh (supra). While dealing with the issue as to whether the first informant or any relative of the deceased or any other aggrieved person is entitled to be heard at the time of consideration of the report by the Magistrate and the Magistrate is bound to issue notice to any such person in criminal proceedings, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid decision as follows- “Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in charge of a police station to the Magistrate under subsection (2)(i) of section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of section 156 Where, in either of these two situations, the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence and to issue process, the informant is not prejudicially affected nor is the injured or in case of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved, because cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate that the case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in the First Information Report, the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the First Information Report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose, wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the First Information Report lodged by him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 154 sub-section (2) of section 157 and sub-section (2)(ii) of section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the First Information Report lodged by him. There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf of the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of effecting service of the notice on the informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the First Information Report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him under sub-section (2) (i) of section 173 if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate.” 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. The Court below has accepted final form against the FIR named accused persons, who are opposite party no. 2 to 4 herein without hearing the informant, which in the opinion of this Court, is violation of the Principle of Natural Justice and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhagwant Singh (supra). 9. Accordingly, part order of the Court below dated 4.12.2018 (Annexure 2) to the extent of final form being accepted in respect of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the same being affirmed in Cr. Rvision vide order 17.12.2019 (Annexure 8), are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, part order of the Court below dated 4.12.2018 (Annexure 2) to the extent of final form being accepted in respect of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the same being affirmed in Cr. Rvision vide order 17.12.2019 (Annexure 8), are hereby quashed and set aside. Court below is directed to proceed in the case in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) after issuing notice to the informant/petitioner. 10. Instant application is thus allowed.