- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Kota( hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/2013, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and upheld the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 5, Kota(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 818/2007, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in criminal case registered before the learned Trial Court, on 19.05.2011 the learned Trial Court found that prima facie charge under Section 457 IPC was made out against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2011, the petitioners filed revision petition before the learned Revisional Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2012. Thereafter, aggrieved by the above both the orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioners preferred misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 784/2012 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2012 dismissed the misc. petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to move an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court that charge under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was not made out and it was prayed that since no charge was made out, the petitioners be discharged, but the learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, vide impugned order dated 22.01.2013 dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence available on record, which could alter or amend the charge under Section 457 IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, a criminal revision petition was filed before the learned Revisional Court and learned Revisional Court, after hearing arguments of both the parties, dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 01.03.2013. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 01.03.2013 and 22.01.2013 passed by the learned Revisional Court as well as the learned Trial Court respectively, the petitioners have preferred this misc. petition.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-State and perused the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below and record of the case.;