1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 712/2005 Mumtaj & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another Date of order : 17/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mrs. Deepika Vyas for the petitioners. Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma for the respondent. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.03.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No. 10/04 whereby the revisional court remanded the matter to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) permitting the accused to raise objections against the order taking cognizance and directing the trial court to hear and decide the objections and pass a fresh order. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on a report lodged by respondent No.2 Abdul Hafiz before Police 2 Station, Nagaur on 23.8.99. The police investigated the matter and submitted negative final report. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint which came to be dismissed by the trial court, against which a revision was filed before revisional court and by the order dated 2.9.2002, the revisional court remanded the matter to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The trial court by order dated 21.7.2003 took the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 494, 497 and 498 IPC and issued the process. That order came to be challenged by the petitioners before revisional court by way of revision being Cr. Revision No.10/04 on which the impugned order came to be passed. In my view, the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of law in view of the Three Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors., JT 2004 (7) SC, 243, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. This view has been reiterated by Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanim Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004 CRI.L.J. 4609, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that there being no provision under the Code for review of an order made by the same Court. In this view of the matter, the order impugned 3 deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the revisional court to hear and decide the revision on merit. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 03.03.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur is set aside. The Criminal Revision No.10/04 is restored and the matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur to hear and decide the Revision No.10/04 filed by the petitioners on merit in accordance with law. Stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp