[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 789/2005 MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 25.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. R.P. Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.06.2004 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Baran in Revision Petition NO. 7/2004, whereby the order dated 13.12.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran in Criminal Case No. 223/2002 has been upheld, by which the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is brother of husband of the complainant Purshottam Garg and is living separately and doing his separate business and in any manner the petitioner is not related with Purshottam Garg even in business and the cognizance which has been taken and the allegations [2] which have been levelled by the complainant upon which cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC has been taken against the petitioner, is per se illegal and contrary to the facts. The complainant simply wants to malign the petitioner and extort money by implicating the petitioner falsely in the complaint and thus the cognizance order which has been passed by the trial Court and upheld by the Revisional Court, requires interference by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also carefully gone through the orders impugned passed by the trial Court as well as Revisional Court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has been framed against the petitioner, therefore, in the considered view of this Court as the petitioner has got every right to urge and submit all just and legal objections which are raised here in this misc. petition before the trial Court at the time of framing charge, but since charge has been framed against the petitioner, the present misc. petition challenging the cognizance order has become infructuous. [3] Consequently, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. The stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/