Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8025 Court No. - 28 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1141 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhagwati Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Madan Gopal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. This application has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.11. 2024 passed by the District and Session Judge, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2024, under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.P.C. ( Mangalmukhi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby order dated 2.4.2024 passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. in Case No. 1954 of 2024, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the S.D.M. Tulsipur, District- Balrampur to conclude the proceedings of Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. deviating from Section 146 Cr.P.C. as contained in Annexure No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that remand order has wrongly been passed by the revisional court as notice was issued to the contesting respondents but they could not appear, therefore it cannot be said that the order was passed exparte especially when the notice has been issued and the service has been affected, therefore, there is no occasion to remand the matter only on the ground of opportunity of hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and the remand order is sustainable in the eyes of law, as if any order is passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the contesting respondents/parties, then that order is against the principles of natural justice. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it appears that there is no perversity or infirmity in the remand order as the said order was passed on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the contesting respondents. Therefore, no inference is required by this Court. 6. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed. However, S.D.M. concerned is directed to decide the case of the petitioner say within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. [Brij Raj Singh, J.] Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench