IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2007 Gurpreet Kaur w/o Jaspal Singh Katrora........ ......Petitioner V/s Jaspal Singh s/o Harjinder Singh Katrora & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.J.S.Chandnani, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.K.H.Giri, Adv. For respondent No.. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 18/1/08 PC: Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that while exercising revisional powers under section 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Sessions Judge is bound to follow the provisions of sub-sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of section 401. Inviting my attention to sub-section 2 of section 401 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an order has been passed which goes to prejudice the present petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is undisputed that the impugned order allowing the revision and directing the Magistrate to issue process has been passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner is a wife and the respondent No.1 is the husband. Respondent No.1 has filed complaint alleging commission of an offence under section 500 of IPC. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 concedes that the 1 impugned order be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the Sessions Judge for rehearing of revision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. In view of concession so made I quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.06 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.990 of 2006. Revision application shall stand restored to file. The Additional Sessions Judge shall decide the revision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. Rule made absolute in above terms. 18.1.08 2