Before the High Court the revision petition was treated to be one under Section 482 of the Code, though styled as one under Section 401 read with Section 402 of the Code.
Appellant No.1 is the wife of appellant No.2 who is a doctor by profession.
In any event, appellants were number heard before the order was passed.
Initially in the present petition the appellants were impleaded as parties but at the request of respondent No.1, their names were deleted.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
No.2535 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
After hearing the revision petitioner respondent No.1 herein the said revision petition was dismissed.
927 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Magistrate to issue process against the appellants.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the application under Section 401 read with Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
Questioning companyrectness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, an application for revision was filed before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, First Track Court V, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
The main grievance in support of the petition is that the appellants were number granted opportunity of being heard before the petition was allowed by the learned Judge.
