K.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) On 27.8.2003, the complainant respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint u/s. 156(3), Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station, where-upon the police registered a case No. 491/2003 and after completion of investigation submitted final report. The complainant respondent filed a protest petition. In support of her protest petition, the complainant examined herself and also got recorded the statements of witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. The trial Court, on consideration of the statements recorded u/ss. 200 & 202, Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offence in respect of accused Uttam Chand, Mohan Lal, Mst. Ramdei and Kumari Babita, but it did not find any prima facie case as against the present petitioners, namely Sheetal and Deepak vide his order dated 2.1.2004. The complainant-respondent, feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate, filed a revision petition and the revisional Court vide its order dated 24.8.2004 accepted the revision petition and reversed the order passed by the trial Court and directed it to take cognizance of the offence u/s. 489-A IPC, in respect of the petitioners. Hence this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) The grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the learned revisional Court has no power to directly direct the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence u/s. 397, Cr.P.C. The learned revisional Court could have directed the trial Court to hold an inquiry if he was of the opinion that the case requires such further inquiry.;