1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Mani Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR.MISC. PETITOIN NO.1027/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: July 18, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Pradeep Shah, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, P.P. Mr.Pankaj Sharma, for non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is first informant in the crime report No.466/2006 has challenged the order dt. 12.6.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short `the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dt. 25.4.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short `the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the 2 order impugned. From perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the petitioner was not the party before the trial court. The petitioner being first informant lodged a crime report No.466/2006, Police Station, Hanumangarh. The matter was investigated. Non- petitioner No.2 Chhabil Das was arrested and produced before the trial court. The trial court did not grant police custody. That order came to be challenged before the revisional court. The revisional court by a well reasoned order, dismissed the revision petition. The State did not challenge the order passed by the revisional court. It is the first informant, who has challenged the order. From perusal of the order it appears that certain cheques alleged to have been signed by the petitioner were issued in favour of non-petitioner No.2, which on being presented to the bank were returned unpaid for want of sufficient fund for which a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been against the present petitioner and trial of which is pending. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first informant lodged the report to preempt the filing of complaint by non-petitioner No.2 against the first informant. Be that as it may, both the courts below have exercised their 3 discretion. It is not a domain of the first informant to have the accused in police custody. No case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-