S. B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.494/2010 DURGA LAL V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 20/07/2010 HON'BLE MR. C.M.TOTLA, J. Mr. Bharat Devasi, for Petitioner (s). Mrs. Chandra Lekha, PP, for the State. Heard. This revision petition challenges judgment dated 3.6.2010 of learned Additional District Judge, by which setting aside magisterial cognizance order dated 15.6.09, directed is deciding the matter afresh. Going through the certified copies presented, appears that the petitioner's complaint for the offences of Sections 143, 323, 341, 452, 384, 394, 395 & 120-B IPC ordered for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and registered was FIR No.117/07. Police report negative submitted. On protest petition, learned Magistrate, recording under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance and registered case against R2 to R6 for the offences of Sections 147, 452, 323/149 IPC and directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution. Cognizance order dated 15.6.09 challenged preferring revision and learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 3.6.10, setting aside the order, remanded for consideration afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner extensively reading statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., argues that substantial ground for proceeding and hence taking cognizance for the offence are, therefore, revisional order is not sustainable in law. Argued that only - 2 - because police submitting negative report (FR), no occasion arises for remanding the matter to the trial Court. In support of contention, cited is AIR 1989 SC 885, M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another, in which is held that on police report, cognizance can be taken without necessarily proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thoughtfully considering arguments, perused the order. Learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, has observed that learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration, in any way, the (negative report) submitted and appropriate order essentially desirable to be only after considering this report and accordingly, remanded with direction to decide afresh. Indisputably, registering FIR, after investigation, is negative report submitted. May be that statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. incriminative one, but still cannot be said that reasons assigned in negative report are not even worthy consideration. In view of this, order of learned Sessions Judge which directs for deciding the matter afresh, does not suffer from any impropriety or irregularity. In view of the above, the revision petition is rejected. However, it is clarified that learned magistrate per direction of learned Sessions Judge considering matter afresh in toto, will pass order without, in any way, being influenced by order of Sessions Judge or prior order of magisterial court. The revision petition is rejected. scd (C. M. TOTLA), J.