1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1069/2004 (Anup Dhoka Vs. Radheshyam and Anr.) Date of Order : 24/07/2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr B.R.Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, public prosecutor for the State. Mr. Ramesh Purohit for the non-petitioner No.1. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.11.2004 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 14/2004, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.7.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 151/02 was dismissed. By order dated 09.07.2002, the trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and 2 issued the process against the petitioner. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court. The revisional court by an elaborate and well reasoned order, dismissed the revision petition. Hence this criminal misc. petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order passed by the revisional court as well as by the trial court. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while dismissing the revision petition, the revisional court in para No.8 of the order noticed that the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) has been initiated by the petitioner against the non-petitioner and observed that prima- facie from the evidence it appears that the cheque amount has been received by the petitioner. It appears from the order impugned that the observation made by the revisional court is based on the evidence produced in this case by the complainant non-petitioner No.1 including the statement of one Krishan Kumar who alleged to have received the cheque amount and issued a receipt. Be 3 that as it may. The observations are prima-facie and the complaint case filed by the petitioner cannot be said to have been finally decided by this order. Learned counsel for the non- petitioner submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act has already been dismissed by order dated 03.06.2005 by the trial court. In this view of the matter, so far as the order taking cognizance by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court is concerned, the same cannot be found faulted. In the circumstances therefore, the petition lacks merit and is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp