ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer : “WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 30.12.2021 in Crl.Rev.P.No.87/2021 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent-State and Sri Basavaraj M. Police Patil, learned counsel for second respondent and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: Second respondent herein filed a private complaint against the accused/petitioners herein in PC No.549/2019 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, seeking action against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 420, 441, 442, 447, 448, 452 read with Section 34 IPC. There is a pending civil dispute between the parties. The said private complaint was referred to police for investigation and filing of appropriate report by exercising powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by the learned Trial Magistrate. 4. Based on the said reference, police registered a case in Crime No.10/2020 and filed ‘B’ final report. 5. The defacto complainant filed a protest petition against the ‘B’ final report. The learned Trial Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and considering the documentary evidence placed on record, was not satisfied that the proposed accused persons (petitioners herein) are to be summoned for further trial and therefore, dismissed the protest petition. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Trial Magistrate, the defacto complainant filed a Revision Petition before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.87/2021. The learned District and Sessions Judge, even without issuing notice to the petitioners herein, secured the records and allowed the Revision Petition by passing following order : “The Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioners/complainant under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed. The order dated 16.09.2021 made in P.C.R.No.549/2019 (Crime No.10/2020) passed by the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburgi is set aside. Consequentially, “B” final report submitted by Investigating Officer is rejected. The order dated 16.09.2021 made in P.C.R.No.549/2019 (Crime No.10/2020) passed by the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburgi is set aside. Consequentially, “B” final report submitted by Investigating Officer is rejected. The trial Court shall take cognizance against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and issue process against accused persons. Complainant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.01.2022 without awaiting any notice from the trial Court. Office to send trial Court records and copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 8. Re-iterating the grounds urged in the petition Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel vehemently contended that the approach of the District Court in not issuing notice to the petitioners and unilaterally deciding the Revision Petition in the absence of the petitioners resulted in miscarriage of justice, besides being flouting all settled principles of law in respect of the doctrine of principles of natural justice and sought for allowing the petition by passing an order as referred to above. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that appropriate orders are to be passed inasmuch as the police had already filed ‘B’ report. 10. Learned counsel for the second respondent Sri Basavaraj M. Police Patil, while supporting the impugned order contended that the learned District Judge has considered the sworn statement and the material documents produced before him and rightly allowed the Revision Petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. 11. In reply, Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar and Others reported in 2020 (6) SCC 625 , contended that the course adopted by the learned District Judge in allowing the Revision Petition is totally opposed to the principles of natural justice and therefore, the present petition needs to be allowed and impugned order passed by the learned District Judge in Criminal Revision Petition needs to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Revisional Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 12. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under : “7. 12. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under : “7. The restoration of the complaint by the Additional Sessions Judge was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the Appellant. The right of the Appellant to be heard at this stage need not detain us any further in view of Manharibhai (supra) observing as follows: 53……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. 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 person 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.” 13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties and the principles of law enunciated above, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is an admitted fact that the defacto complainant after filing the private complaint got the matter referred to the jurisdictional police who inturn after thorough investigation filed ‘B’ final report. 15. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is an admitted fact that the defacto complainant after filing the private complaint got the matter referred to the jurisdictional police who inturn after thorough investigation filed ‘B’ final report. 15. A protest petition came to be filed by the defacto complainant and the same was considered by the learned Trial Magistrate and permitted the defacto complainant to have his sworn statement recorded and also documents that were placed before the Court were marked. 16. On consideration of the sworn statement material in the form of sworn statement and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Magistrate was not satisfied that a case is made out for the alleged offences to summon the petitioners before the learned Trial Magistrate for further proceedings and therefore, dismissed the protest petition. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant filed the Revision Petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.87/2021. 18. Once the Criminal Revision Petition came to be filed before the learned District Court, the learned District Judge did not choose to issue notice to the petitioners who are the proposed accused before the disposal of the said Revision Petition on merits. 19. On the contrary, he decided the Revision Petition in the absence of the petitioners and allowed the Revision Petition. The said action on the part of the learned District Judge in the Revision Petition is opposed to the principles of natural justice besides being acting as prejudicial to the interest of the Revision Petitioners. 20. It is settled principles of law that no lis can be decided in the absence of a party. It is one thing that if a party is notified about the lis; still he does not choose to appear and offer his say in the matter. But, notifying a party about the case pending against him is a must. This is the bedrock of principles of natural justice. 21. In the case on hand, if the revisional Court had issued the notice to the petitioners and heard them before the revision could be decided on merits, the revisional Court could have had the benefit of the explanation that would have been offered by the petitioners in respect of the revisional grounds and the revisional Court could have passed a judicious order. 22. 22. Suffice to say, that the learned District Judge in the Revision Petition did not adopt the said procedure and thereby the order passed by the learned District Judge which is impugned in the present petition has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 23. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation whatsoever in setting aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned District Judge for fresh disposal after hearing the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (ii) Since the Revision Petition is of the year 2021, the petitioners herein and the defacto complainant who is the second respondent herein, are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 06.03.2023 without further notice. (iii) Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge hear the parties afresh after affording reasonable opportunity in accordance with law especially in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the case cited supra. (iv) Order accordingly.