1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 880/2007 ........ Date of Order : 25/04/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. M.K.Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Moolchandani, P.P. Mr. D.S.Dev for the respondent No.2. BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc. petition is directed against the order dated 16.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, district Sri Ganganagar, (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.12.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), taking cognizance of the offences, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been filed by the petitioner against the complainant of this case on 16.8.2003. In that complaint, the cheque is dated 13.6.2003 which was dishonoured on the same day and notice demanding the cheque amount was given and thereafter the complaint has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a criminal complaint was filed on 2.7.2003 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 504 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate prior to filing of complaint by the petitioner stating therein that cheques were entrusted to the petitioner, however, some of the cheques have not been returned and have been misused by the petitioner and thereafter getting the cheque dishonoured filed the complaint. The report lodged by the complainant is prior in time i.e. 2.7.2003. The trial court as well as the revisional court on the basis of the material available, prima-facie came to the conclusion that there is ground to proceed against the petitioner for the offences alleged. Before the trial court, as many as three witnesses CW-1 to CW-3 have been produced by the complainant. On close scrutiny of the material placed on record, in my view, the courts below were justified in passing the orders 3 impugned. The petitioner has already availed one revision as envisaged under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks second revision which is otherwise barred by sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the orders impugned would result in manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court warranting interference in the inherent jurisdiction. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp