1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 998 OF 2009 Nagesh Laxman Punage & ors ........Petitioner versus Mrs. Madhugandha Chintamani Punage & ors .......Respondent. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. Pawar i/b A.M. Saitavane for respondent no.1. Mrs. R.V. Newton APP for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22-12-2008 thereby allowing the revision filed by the present respondent no.2, challenging the order of non issuance of process against the present petitioner passed by the learned JMFC, Pune dated 5-1-2008. 3. A complaint came to be filed by the respondent no.1 for offence punishable under sections 497, 498-A and 500 of IPC. The learned Magistrate upon perusal of the complaint and statement of the accused found that a prima facie case was made out against accused no.1 for offence under sec. 498-A and 500 IPC. However in so far as the other accused are concerned, the learned Magistrate 2 has found that no prima facie case was made out against them and therefore did not issue process against them. The respondent no.2 challenged the order of the learned Magistrate by filing a revision to the extent that the learned Magistrate refused to issue process against rest of the accused. The learned Revisional Court allowed the revision by the order impugned herein and set aside the order refusing to issue process against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed. 4. This court in the case of Shriram Nagordhar Mahajan & ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. Reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 2216 has taken a view that under the provisions of section 401(2) of Cr.P.C. it is necessary that before deciding a revision, it is necessary to give an opportunity to grant hearing to any person, who is likely to be prejudicially affected by the order of the revisional court. From the order of the revisional court, it can be seen that the learned court has observed that it was not necessary to issue notice to the present petitioners. In view of the judgment of this court cited supra, the order of the learned revisional court is not sustainable in law and the same is therefore quashed and set aside. 5. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions court for deciding it afresh in accordance with the law laid down by this court in the case cited supra. 6. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. (B.R. Gavai, J.)