ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, in Criminal Revision No.74/2023, exercising powers under Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. The order reversed the decision of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railmagra, District Bhilwara, in Regular Criminal Case No.19/2022, vide which charges were framed against respondent No.3 under Section 494 of the IPC. Respondent No.3 is alleged to be the second wife of respondent No.2, despite his first marriage being legally valid. 2. The relevant facts of the case, as outlined in the petition, are as follows: 2.1 The petitioner lodged an FIR against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other family members, alleging cruelty, harassment, demand for dowry by her in-laws, and bigamy committed by accused-respondent No.2. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed against accused-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 2.2 On 25.05.2023, the trial court framed charges under Section 498-A, 406 of IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against respondent No.2 and under Section 494 of the IPC against respondent No.3. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2023, accused-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly filed a revision petition. The learned Revisional Court rejected the petition in respect of respondent No.2 but allowed it in respect of respondent No.3, thereby setting aside the trial court’s order and discharging her from the offense under Section 494 of IPC. Hence, this petition has been filed. 3. In light of the above, I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the record. 4. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the revision petition filed by accused-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Sessions Court did not implead the petitioner as a party. Under Section 401(2) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is a necessary party. Thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that short ground alone. 5. In response to the court's query, the learned Public Prosecutor agrees that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Accordingly, the matter should be remitted back for fresh consideration and decision on merits by the competent court after hearing the petitioner. 6. 5. In response to the court's query, the learned Public Prosecutor agrees that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Accordingly, the matter should be remitted back for fresh consideration and decision on merits by the competent court after hearing the petitioner. 6. My attention has also been drawn to a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) L &Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2054/2008[2008 SCC Online SC 1901]. The relevant portion of the judgment ibid is extracted hereinbelow: “11. Section 397of the Code empowers the High Court to call for records of the case to exercise its power of revision in order to satisfy itself as regards correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. Sub-section (2) of Section 397of the Code, however, prohibits exercise of such power in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any proceeding. Whereas Section 399 of the Code deals with the Sessions Judge's power of revision; Section 401 deals with the High Court's power of revision. Sub-section (2) of Section 401 the Code reads, thus: "(2) 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." 12. Submission of Mr. Jaspal Singh that by reason of the impugned order the appellant was not prejudiced and in any event at the pre-summoning stage, he was not an accused, cannot be accepted. Sub-section (2) of Section 401 the Code refers not only to an accused but also to any person and if he is prejudiced, he is required to be heard. An order was passed partially in his favour. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) of the Code. Had an opportunity of hearing been given to the appellant, he could have shown that no revision application was maintainable and/ or even otherwise, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. 13. In Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan [ (1981) 1 SCC 62 ], this Court opined that the principle of audi alteram partem is applicable in a proceeding before the High Court. 13. In Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan [ (1981) 1 SCC 62 ], this Court opined that the principle of audi alteram partem is applicable in a proceeding before the High Court. Yet again in P. Sundarrajan and Others v. R. Vidhya Sekar [ (2004) 13 SCC 472 ], this Court held: "4. On the above basis, it proceeded to consider the material produced by the petitioner before it and without taking into consideration the defence that was available to the respondent proceeded to set aside the order of the Magistrate, and directed the said court to take the complaint on file and proceed with the same in accordance with law. 5. In our opinion, this order of the High Court is ex facie unsustainable in law by not giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to defend his case that the learned Judge violated all principles of natural justice as also the requirement of law of hearing a party before passing an adverse order.” 7. In view of the aforesaid unambiguous position in law qua the applicability of Section 401(2) to the proceedings which are initiated under Section 399(2), I am of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge committed an error in law by not impleading the petitioner herein as a party in the revisional proceedings instituted by respondents No.2 and 3, impugning the framing of charges against them under Section 493 of IPC. 8. The petition is allowed accordingly. In the premise, the order dated 06.04.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, in Criminal Revision No.74/2023 is set aside, the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner by impleading her as a party to the revision petition. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.