1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 467/2006 ..... Date of Order : 19/02/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. N.L.Joshi for the petitioners. Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. Mr. R.Bhatnagar for the respondent. No.2. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, district Sriganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 09.11.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 452, 148 and 427 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, was dismissed. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the orders impugned. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the police submitted a negative final report and without assigning any reasons for not agreeing with the reasons given by the police, the trial court took the cognizance. Learned counsel appearing for the first informant and public prosecutor submit that the revisional court has taken into consideration every piece of material available on record including the site map and site inspection note which show prima-facie the occurrence having taken place. The reasons assigned by the police cannot be said to be sound in the light of the evidence available in the police investigation diary. Be that as it may, from the perusal of the order of the revisional court, it appears that every piece of material has been considered by the revisional court and it is not the rule of thumb that in every case the reasons have to be assigned for not agreeing with the FR. In the instant case, it appears that there being sufficient evidence, yet the police submitted negative final report. In the circumstances, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned by the police for filing negative final report contrary to the evidence on investigation diary are not required to be specifically dealt with. The petitioner has already availed a revision under Section 397 3 Cr.P.C. and in the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks to avail second revision which is barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be a case that the orders impugned, if allowed to stand, would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any Court. The criminal misc. petition has no force and it is dismissed. Interim stay order stands vacated. (H.R.PANWAR),J. Rp