IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.136 of 2008 MD. NASARUDDIN S/O OF MD. SAHABUDDIN, R/O VILL IBRAHIMPUR, P.S. PIRO, DIST. BHOJPUR. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NURJAHAN D/O MD. SALIMUDDIN, R/O VILL-BIRAHIMPUR, P.S. PIRO, DIST. BHOJPUR. --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Madherendu, Advocate. For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 04 17.08.2010 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. III, Ara at Bhojpur in Cr. Rev. no. 51 of 2006. The opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against several persons under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504 and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The enquiry was held in which 03 enquiry witnesses were produced and examined apart from the S.A. of the complainant. Learned Magistrate took cognizance only under Section 323 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the complainant/opposite party no.2 preferred aforesaid revision application which was disposed of. Learned revisional Court after setting aside the order under revision remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that the notice of the revision application was/were not validly served on him. It is, thus, submitted that the order impugned is vitiated in law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that notices 2 were issued and served in the manner indicated in paragraph no.5 of the order impugned and thereafter the impugned order has been passed after hearing the complainant and the State. It is next contended that the order impugned does not prejudice the case of the petitioner as the matter has ultimately been remanded back to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. I have heard the sides. It appears that notices were issued to the opposite parties which were not received personally but was received on their behalf, by someone in the family. The Court, in that view of the matter, accepted the same as valid and proceeded to dispose of the revision and ultimately the matter has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. In view of the fact, that the matter has ultimately been remanded, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned only on the ground that the notices were not effected on them personally. This Court, however, observes that learned Magistrate shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law uninfluenced by the findings/observation recorded by the learned revisional Court in the impugned order. With this observation the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)