IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13718 of 2004 1. Binod Singh @ Binod Kr. Singh, son of Dev Nandan Singh, 2. Narendra Singh @ Narendra Kr. Singh, son of Prabhu Singh, 3. Nagendra Singh, son of Late Ram Agin Singh, village Dumri, PS Doriganj, District Saran at Chapra – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Chandradeo Rai, son of Late Bulash Rai, village Parmanandpur, PS Sonepur, Dist. Saran. 3) Shanti Devi, wife of Late Chandeshwar Rai, village Parmanandpur, PS Sonepur, Dist. Saran – Opposite parties. … For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Devendra Narayan Singh and Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh No.1. 12 29.11.2010 The petitioners have challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 959/1996 / 35/1997 arising out of Doriganj Ps Case No. 60 of 1993. An F.I.R. was instituted on 14.11.1993 under sections 324, 307/34 of the Penal Code and 27, Arms Act. The police submitted final form on 30.4.1994 which was accepted on 6.8.1996. In the mean time a protest petition was also filed on 12.3.1993 which was treated as a complaint case. The informant filed the revision application against the order, dated 6.8.1996 which was allowed on 13.1.1998. As a consequence of the order passed in the criminal revision aforesaid, cognizance was taken against the petitioners vide order, dated 6.3.2003. The only question which arises in this case is whether the court could have reversed the findings of the Magistrate accepting the final form without hearing the petitioners? The answer to the aforesaid question would obviously be in the negative. The petitioners by virtue of the order, dated 6.8.1996 2 have derived a benefit, inasmuch that they were no longer pursuing the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. lodged against them. To substantiate the aforesaid proposition the petitioners rely on a decision in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Limited & Another, 2009 (2) S.C.C. 363. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid case I direct that the District Judge, Chapra should rehear the revision application after ensuring that both the informant and the accused are being represented in the case. The order, dated 13.1.1998 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chapra is hereby quashed. The quashing of the order passed in the revision application would naturally lead to the quashing of the consequential order taking cognizance on 6.3.2003 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Chapra. The petitioners are directed to bring to the notice of the concerned court a copy of this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of its receipt. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)