IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1228 of 2009 1. Nago Yadav son of Panchu Yadav 2. Madan Yadav son of Panchu Yadav 3. Panchu Yadav son of Late Jibu Yadav. 4. Golu Yadav son of Nago Yadav All are resident of village Kuhila P.S. Sono District- Jamui. … Accused-Petitioners. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Kunti Devi wife of Fuleshwar Yadav, Resident of village Kuhila P.S. Sono District Jamui. … Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 26.08.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 9th June 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2009 by which the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in Complaint Case No. 1225-C of 2007 has been set aside and the learned Magistrate has been directed to pass afresh and reasoned order in accordance with law. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint petition was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who was pleased to direct the SDPO to enquire into the matter and submit its report. SDPO found the case false but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 2 transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate for enquiry and disposal. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate has not found any case for the offence punishable under Sections 376 I.P.C. It has been further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has no occasion to direct the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the same material. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that there is material on record to show that accused petitioners have committed offence under Section 376 I.P.C. also and the learned Sessions Judge has only set aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance and directed him to consider the material afresh and pass order in accordance with law. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State it appears that on a complaint petition filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 376 also, a report was called for from the SDPO who did not find the case true. 3 Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class for enquiry and disposal. Although the learned Judicial Magistrate has made enquiry but he has not found any case for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. Enquiry witness Nos. 1 and 2 have supported the case of the complainant. After considering the materials on record, learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 16.12.2008 taking cognizance against the accused under Sections 323, 354 and 504 I.P.C. and directed him to pass afresh and reasoned order in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)