As per case facts, the Petitioners sought to quash an order from the Sessions Judge that directed the registration of an FIR against them, as well as the subsequent FIR ... itself. The complainant's initial application to the Magistrate for FIR registration was dismissed, but the Sessions Judge, in a revision application, overturned the Magistrate's decision and ordered the FIR without hearing the Petitioners. The Petitioners argued this violated their right to be heard. The question arose whether a proposed accused must be heard by a Revisional Court when a complainant's application for FIR registration under Section 156(3) of CrPC is initially rejected by a Magistrate but later allowed in revision. Finally, the Court held that the impugned order by the Sessions Judge was a clear violation of mandatory provisions of the CrPC, particularly the requirement that no order prejudicial to an accused can be made without an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Sessions Judge's order and the resultant FIR were quashed, and the case was remanded back for fresh consideration with due opportunity for the Petitioners to be heard.