1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.402/2010 (Prabhu Dayal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 10.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ajeet Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court: It is a case where after investigation, adverse Final Report was given by the police. The Court below took cognizance vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2006. The order aforesaid was challenged by maintaining a revision petition. The challenge could not sustain in view of the order 12.08.2009 wherein the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Has been filed. It is contended that while taking cognizance, the Court below literally drawn conclusions of guilt against the petitioner, thus the trial would be an empty formality now. In view of aforesaid, it is prayed that cognizance order so as the order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside. This is apart from the fact that petitioner has wrongly been taken for an offence to which he has no concern. The 2 charge of woods was never handed over to the petitioner with required details, thus if there was a shortage of wood, it cannot be attributed towards the petitioner. Taking note of the aforesaid fact also, the prayer has been made for interference of this Court in two orders passed by the Courts below. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. The present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but a second revision petition as after challenging the order of cognizance by maintaining revision petition, petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is now settled law that the miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing but a second revision petition, if the order of revisional court is challenged. The interference therein is rare of rarest cases. The case as made out by the petitioner is nothing but marshaling the facts, which is not the domain of this Court for entertaining second revision petition in the shape of miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below, accordingly, the miscellaneous petitioner is dismissed. It is, however, clarified and observed that if any observation made while passing the order for taking cognizance would not prejudice the case of the 3 petitioner and the Trial Court is expected to proceed with the trial independent to the observations made for taking cognizance. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.7