SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.1157/2005 Jugraj Parihar Vs. State 1 S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1157/2005 Jugraj Parihar vs State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : - 10.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Suresh Kumbhat, for the petitioner. Mr.VR Mehta, Public Prosecutor. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. A complaint was submitted in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station for investigation wherein after recording statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the parties, the police submitted final negative report. A protest petition was submitted by the complainant and after hearing the complainant, the protest petition was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 25.1.2005. The petitioner preferred revision petition no.48/2005, that too, was dismissed by the revisional court, hence, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C preferred by the complainant. SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.1157/2005 Jugraj Parihar Vs. State 2 According to learned counsel for the petitioner without giving an opportunity to produce evidence to the complainant as required under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the trial court rejected the protest petition and that is the illegality in the order. It is also submitted that from the evidence already available on record, the offence is made out and, therefore, the trial court has committed serious error of law by not taking cognizance and the same error was committed by the revisional court, hence, the orders may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the court below for reconsideration of protest petition. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons given by the trial court in detail in order dated 25.1.2005. From the order, it is nowhere transpires that petitioner sought opportunity to produce more evidence then what has been collected by the investigating agency and it appears from the order that petitioner by his own conduct persuaded the court to pass the order on the basis of material available on record in the light of his submissions made in the protest petition. The trial court considered the evidence available on record and SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.1157/2005 Jugraj Parihar Vs. State 3 rejected petitioner's protest petition Then the petitioner preferred revision petition and in said revision petition also, he has not raised any grievance for not giving opportunity by the court below for producing the evidence. In addition to the above, it appears that two courts below have considered the statement of the witnesses as well as surrounding circumstances and, thereafter, reached to the conclusion that there is no reason to take cognizance and proceed against the accused. I do not find that by these orders, the process of court has been abused or the courts have failed to exercise their jurisdiction. In view of the above reasons, it is not fit case where the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in the facts of this case. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-