Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Goverdhan Singh S/o. Bharat Singh, resident of Bikaner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.1.2014 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Cr. Revision No. 65/2013 (11/2010) whereby the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated 11.8.2008 was set aside and the respondents were discharged from the charges leveled against them.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed in revision petition is not in consonance with law because the complaint filed by the complainant -petitioner after recording the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court accepted the protest petition filed by the petitioner and take cognizance against the respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 504 IPC but the revisional court without considering the statement of the complainant -petitioner and Virendra Singh in very casual manner quashed the order of cognizance which is not permissible in law. It is also pointed out that the revisional court observed in the impugned order that the learned trial court has failed to consider the reasons given by the police for filing final report and if it is so, then the revisional court was under obligation to remit the case to the learned trial court, but instead of sending the case for deciding the question of cognizance afresh, the revisional court set aside the order of cognizance, therefore, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in, 2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 216 the revisional court ought to have remand the case for passing order afresh while considering the reasons given by the police for filing FR, but the revisional court exercised its own power and set aside the order which is not permissible in the law. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I have perused the order impugned. It is true that if the revisional court set aside the order on the ground that reasons to disagree with the ground of FR are not given then the matter is to be sent back to the learned trial court for passing order afresh, but here in this case, the revisional court considered the entire evidence and found that order of cognizance is not in consonance with law against the respondents, who are employees of Commercial Taxes Department, therefore in the opinion of this Court, the public servant performing their official duty are having protection of law, so also, no person can be allowed file false complaint against them only to malign their prestige. Here in this case, the petitioner is RTI activities, therefore, obviously in the event of not receiving desired information, he has filed this false criminal case against the officials. In view of above facts, the learned revisional court has rightly set aside the order because the action of complainant is completely abuse of process of court.
(3.) THEREFORE , this revision petition is hereby dismissed.;