IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1607 of 2009 PANKAJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3/ 14.5.2010 Heard. After having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I find that it would not be proper to go into the merit of the allegation and submissions simply in view of the fact that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision no. 76 of 2007 / 5 of 2007 on 10.6.2008 was passed without hearing the petitioner. In fact, the error was not of the learned judge who passed the impugned order rather the petition had been filed without impleading the petitioner as a party. There is a line of decisions taking a view that even in a case of dismissal of complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused who was figuring in the complaint petition has to be impleaded as party and has to be heard. The Supreme Court has taken that view and in that line, this court’s view has also been moulded to that extent though this court had earlier taken a view that it may not be necessary for any court of revision to hear an accused against whom a complaint has been dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the existing view, the order impugned is hereby set aside. I direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum F.T.C. I, Jehanabad to restore Criminal revision to its original number and file and call upon the petitioner of that criminal 2 revision petition, i.e., the opposite party no. 2 presently impleaded herein to implead the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 76 of 2007 as opposite party no. 2 who shall be given a notice of hearing and after hearing the accused, the learned trial judge shall proceed to pass a fresh order. If any order of summoning has been passed, that shall be deemed not to have been passed on account of the present order. This petition is allowed in the above terms. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)