IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR SAMSUDEEN VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND 14 ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.1286 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated September 3, 2008 of Special JudgeST/SC (prevision atrocities) Cases Alwar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 182 of 2007. Date of Order : December 1 , 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Manish Gupta for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Sandhu PP for the State BY THE COURT : The petitioner Samsudeen filed this revision petition assailing the order dated September 3, 2008 passed by Special Judge ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases, Alwar allowing the revision petition against the order dated August 29, 2007 remanding the matter to the trial court for passing appropriate orders afresh after hearing both the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing No. 268/03 dated August 14, 2003 was registered at Police Station Sadar Alwar wherein after investigation the police submitted a wrong FR despite the fact that from the side of complainant as many as six persons received gun shot injuries. The petitioner submitted a protest application against the said FR before the Judicial Magistrate Alwar. The Magistrate recorded the statements of injured witnesses. On the basis of statements of witnesses and injury reports the Magistrate vide order dated August 29, 2007 took cognizance against the non-petitioners 2 to 15. In another FIR No. 267/03 the police filed charge sheet against the complainant party. The non-petitioners 2 to 15 feeling aggrieved against the order of the Magistrate dated August 29, 2007 filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge Alwar, which was transferred to the Special Judge, ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases Alwar. The Special Judge vide order dated September 3, 2008 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated August 29, 2007 taking cognizance against the non-petitioners 2 to 15 and directed the Magistrate to decide the matter afresh. Against this order the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Special Judge did not consider the elaborate order passed by the Magistrate after taking evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the injury reports wherein the complainant party also received various gun shot injuries. The Special Judge has not considered the aspect that FIR No. 267/03 was registered by the non-petitioners 2 to 15 and the incident which was narrated in it was similar to the incident stated in the FIR No. 268/03. The learned counsel further submitted that though the police submitted negative final report in the cross FIR but the Magistrate after due consideration recorded the statements of injured witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and looking to the injury reports, site plan and contents of the FIR took congnizance against the non- petitioners 2 to 15. The order of the Special Judge in these circumstances is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality in remanding the matter back to the trial court for passing appropriate order afresh. 5. I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record. It appears from the order that the Special Judge has taken into consideration all the material available on record and was of the opinion that the trial court again should rehear both the parties and pass a fresh order. Thus the order passed by the Special Judge remanding the matter back to the trial court for passing appropriate orders afresh is not called for any interference by this court in revisional powers. In these circumstances the revision petition is disposed with the directions that the trial court should rehear both the parties and pass appropriate orders afresh and if it founds that the cognizance is to be taken against the non-petitioners 2 to 15 it will take cognizance and proceed in the matter expeditiously. 6. The revision petition is disposed as indicated above and the matter is remanded back. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/