[2025:RJ-JP:25688] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1266/2016 Ramesh Chand Tiwari S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Tiwari, R/o Lokshah Nagar, P.s. Beawar City, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp 2. Shri Vipul Khetawat S/o Shri Ranchhod Das Ji Khetawat , R/o Sarawagi Mohalla, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Deshraj Kalwania HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/07/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner accused aggrieved dissatisfied and aggrieved from order dated 05.08.2016 in criminal revision no. 22/2012 (45/2012) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.3, Beawar, District Ajmer wherein a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. filed aggrieved from order dated 11.11.2011 in FR no. 16/2008, learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 11.11.2011 and remitted back the matter to the trial court for decision afresh. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is settled law that in case a revision petition is allowed and any order is passed against any person then he should be given opportunity of hearing. He further submits that impugned order has caused [2025:RJ-JP:25688] (2 of 2) [CRLR-1266/2016] prejudice and he should be heard before passing any order. He referred Section 401(2) of Cr.P.C. for the purpose. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that he also agreed to aforesaid proposition but this Hon’ble Court may consider this revision petition on merits. 4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and learned public prosecutor, I am of the considered view that it was duty of learned Additional Sessions Judge to issue notice to present petitioner and consider his defence before passing any order like dated 05.08.2016, therefore, it is appropriate to allow this revision petition and remit back the matter to the revisional court for decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to present petitioner and also to complainant. 5. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the revisional court, (Additional Sessions Judge no.3, Beawar, District Ajmer) for decision afresh on revision application no. 22/2012 (45/2012) within three months from date of receipt of copy of this order but without prejudice from any order passed on previous occasion. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional court on 11.08.2025. 7. The Revision Petition stands disposed of with pending applications, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /90