H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By filling this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.RC., the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 10.11.95 and 5.2.97 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the trial court took cognizance for offences under Sections 447, 448, 323, 504 and 427 I.RC. against the petitioners on a complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2. The order taking cognizance is a intermediary order but positively not a interlocutory order and against such order a revision is maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.RC. as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur v. Dashrath Singh, 1996 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 592 .
(2.) In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., 1988(4) SCC 655 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr.RC. has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at the initial stage, the Court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.
(3.) In State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhahan Lai & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to law or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint by the complainant.;