H.R.PANWAR,J. - (1.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 155/2004, whereby the Revisional Court set aside the order dated 21.6.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 511/2004, and directed the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 452, 336, 323, 504/149 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioners and summon them by warrant. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view the provisions of Section 398 of the Code, the Revisional Court ought not have directed the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned order. Section 398 of the Code reads as under: "398.-Power to order inquiry. - On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this Section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made." ;