1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Mehar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.259/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: March 12, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR None present, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: No one appears for the petitioner. Earlier also when the matter came up before the Court on 2.4.2007, no one appeared even in second round and the matter was adjourned. By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has challenged the order dt. 28.6.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh (for short `the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 21.5.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh (for short `the trial court' 2 hereinafter) was dismissed. I have gone through the grounds taken in memo of petition as also the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court. It appears that on FIR being FIR No.137/2003, police investigated the matter and submitted the negative final report. The petitioner filed a protest petition before the trial court. The trial court on the basis of material placed before it, accepted the negative final report and dismissed the protest petition vide order dt. 21.5.2004, that order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court by filing a revision petition. The revisional court also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. In my view, the revisional court was justified in dismissing the revision petition against the order of the trial court. There is no sufficient material on record of the trial court to proceed against respondent No.2 and, therefore, in my view, no case for interference in inherent jurisdiction is made out. Even otherwise the petitioner has already availed one remedy by way of filing a revision petition before the revisional court as envisaged under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Under the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to avail 3 a remedy of second revision. The second revision is barred by Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-