S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition No.1129/2004 Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Dated : 15.04.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. None present for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev K.Mehla PP for the State. Mr. MC Jain for the complainant. *** None is present for the petitioner-Rajendra Kumar. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully perused the impugned orders dated 2nd May, 2003 and 17th June, 2004 rendered by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Jaipur and Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur respectively. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the impugned order rendered by the courts below, it is noticed that the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur took cognizance for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 504 and 448 of IPC. Aggrieved with this order of taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, the accused petitioner Rajendra Kumar preferred a revision which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in its revisional jurisdiction, hence, this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is relevant to record that initially the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur took cognizance for the offence under Sections 452, 504, 448, 341 and 323 of IPC and proceeded against the accused petitioners namely Shyam Sunder, Bajranglal, Ramgopal and Rajendra Kumar Sharma on 9th December, 2002. The accused persons preferred a criminal revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of taking cognizance, remitting the case with the direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass order afresh. The learned Judicial Magistrate afforded an opportunity of being heard to both the accused as also the complainant and thereafter again took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences. The grounds set out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the misc. petition are found to be devoid of any substance. There is a concurrent finding of both the courts below with regard to taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. The orders rendered by the courts below are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 2nd May, 2003 as also 17th June, 2004 do not warrant any intervention and the petition deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg