wp2339-09.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2339 OF 2009 Ajit Chandrakant Tamhane .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. Rasika Bagkar i/by M/s Bagkar & Co. for the petitioner in WP 2339/09 Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, APP for the respondent No.1 Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for respondent no.2 CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 3rd May, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The complaint filed by respondent no.2 Rajnikant Deshmukh, who is original complainant, was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. However, the revision filed by the complainant was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per order dated 7th November, 2008, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant/accused. The record also reveals that the applicant, who was accused, was not even made a party in that revision application. It is now well settled that if 1 wp2339-09.sxw the complaint has been dismissed or the Magistrate has refused to issue process against the accused, that order cannot be set aside unless the accused is given an opportunity of hearing. In view of this, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also no objection to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back to the Sessions Court for hearing and disposal as per law. 4. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and Criminal Revision No.484 of 2008 is hereby remanded back to the Sessions Court, Mumbai for hearing and disposal, afresh. 5. Leave granted to respondent no.2/ revision applicant to implead the present Petitioner- Ajit Tamhane as respondent in the revision application. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 2