Kailash Chandra Joshi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant- respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the competent court stating that he along with petitioner No.1 was doing the business activities in partnership along with one Raghuveer at Assam but due to some dispute he dissolved the partnership. It was alleged that on 12.10.2008 the accused petitioners entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him. The said complaint was sent for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon a case was registered and investigation commenced and police filed a final negative report. Thereupon, the complainant preferred a protest petition and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate , Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide its order dated 06.06.2009 took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under section 452 and 323/34 IPC. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned revisional court, who dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have preferred this cri.misc. Petition.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned trial court dated 06.06.2009 and that of the revisional court dated 22.04.2011 is clearly an abuse of the process of law and per se it is illegal, perverse and improper. Therefore, both the orders require to be set aside and the misc. Petition may be allowed so as to quash the proceedings of the learned trial court dated 06.06.2009.;