IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41763 of 2007 1. MUNNA JHA SON OF NAVEEN CHANDRA JHA, R/O VILLAGE- SINGHPUR, P.S.- SAJOUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR 2. CHANDRADEO TANTI SON OF LATE DOMAN TANTI, R/O VILLAGE- RAHULNAGAR, P.S.- SAJOUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEENA DEVI WIFE OF BHAGWAN JHA, R/O VILLAGE- SINGHPUR, P.S.- SAJOUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ----------- 4 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2004 by which the order taking cognizance under Sections 448, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 13.9.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in G.R. Case No. 1970 of 2004 arising out of Sahkund P.S. Case No. 71 of 2004 was affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR was registered after ten days of the occurrence under Sections 354 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the case was found to be true under the aforesaid sections but on the basis of statement of the victim given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded on 9.9.2004 cognizance was taken. This petition is by the same party whose revision application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is 2 the second revision under the nomenclature of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sub-clause 3 deals with the power of the revisional courts. According to this Section, if an application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. made by a party either before the High Court or Sessions Judge is dismissed then any further application by the same party has been barred. Once the revision application of the petitioners was dismissed then there was no occasion at all to move before this Court. However such orders may be challenged if there are some extra ordinary grounds but in the present case it does not appear that any such grounds exist for which this Court should interfere with. The order taking cognizance has been passed after considering the statement of the victim made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has alleged that she was raped by the petitioners. The impugned order is correct and needs no interference of this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise their grievance at the appropriate stage. Avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)