IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR KEDAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.1348 of 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated September 18, 2007 of Addl. Sessions Hindaun City in Criminal Revision Petition No. 119of 2005. Date of Order : December 12, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Anurag Sharma for the petitioner. Ms. Jitendra Pandey the non-petitioners 2 to 4. Mr. B.N. Sandhu PP for the State BY THE COURT : The petitioner Kedar Prasad filed this revision petition assailing the order dated September 18, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City allowing the revision petition against the order dated September 30, 2005 remanding the matter to the trial court for passing appropriate orders afresh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of written report submitted by petitioner FIR No. 63/2003 was registered at Police Station Todabhim against the non-petitioners 2 to 4 for offences under sections 447, 323 and 379 IPC. It was interalia stated in the report that on Feb. 22, 2003 while the complainant and his son came to look after their shop situated at Balaji, they found the non-petitioners 2 to 4 breaking the locks of the shop. When they protested to such illegal acts the non- petitioners 2 to 4 started beating them. The non-petitioners 2 to 4 broke open the shutter of the shop and took away with them articles used in construction work. During the course of investigation the police inspected the site and prepared site plan. On account of fear of the non- petitioners 2 to 4 the residents of the vicinity did not depose against the non-petitioners 2 to 4 and hence final report before the Magistrate was submitted by the police. The petitioner filed a protest report before the Judicial Magistrate Todabhim. The Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the petitioner and his son Virendra Kumar and disallowed the Final report of the police and took cognizance of offences under sections 454, 323 and 380 IPC against the non-petitioners 2 to 4 vide order dated September 30, 2005. The non-petitioners 2 to 4 challenged the order dated September 30, 2005 by filing criminal revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge Hindaun City. The revisional court after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the order dated September 30, 2005 vide his order dated September 18, 2007 and remanded the matter back to the trial court for passing appropriate fresh orders. Against this order the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has seriously erred in over looking the order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate. The order of the Magistrate was based on sound reasoning and was passed after considering the police papers and the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the order passed by the Magistrate did not warrant any interference in as much as there was sufficient evidence available on record to proceed against the non-petitioners 2 to 4 for taking cognizance of the said offences. The shop in question admittedly was in possession of the petitioner and the non-petitioners forcibly bent up to take possession of the shop. 5. The learned counsel for the non- petitioners 2 to 4 and Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in remanding the matter back to the trial court for passing appropriate order afresh. 6. 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 Additional Sessions 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 learned Additional Sessions 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 4 it will take cognizance and proceed in the matter expeditiously. 7. The revision petition is disposed as indicated above and the matter is remanded back. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/