Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No. 99/2012, whereby the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition. Before the revisional court, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 16.05.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in FIR No. 101/2011 of Police Station, Beechhwal, District Bikaner, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner moved under section 190 CrPC and also rejected the prayer of the petitioner to give directions to the police to conduct further investigation in the above mentioned FIR. While rejecting the application under section 190 CrPC and declining the prayer of the petitioner to direct the police to conduct further investigation, the trial court vide order dated 16.05.2012 has ordered for taking cognizance against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 277 and 304 -A IPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner on 31.05.2011, the police has registered the FIR No. 101/2011 at Police Station, Beechhwal, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC and section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act' hereinafter) and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed charge -sheet against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 277 and 304 -A IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under section 190 CrPC on 13.01.2012 before the trial court and prayed that cognizance be taken against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC and under section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. The petitioner had also moved an application before the trial court seeking direction for the police authorities to further investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR No. 101/2011. The trial court, vide order dated 16.05.2012, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 190 CrPC and also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for directing the police to conduct further investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No. 101/2011 and took cognizance against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 277 and 304 -A IPC. Being aggrieved with the order dated 16.05.2012, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, wherein the petitioner had confined his prayer only up to the extent of quashing of the order of the trial court, whereby it has declined to direct the police to conduct further investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR. The petitioner has not challenged the dismissal of his application filed under section 190 CrPC and has also not challenged the order of the trial court up to the extent of taking cognizance against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 277 and 304 -A IPC.
(3.) NOW the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revisional court while contending that the revisional court has erred in affirming the order passed by the trial court whereby it has declined to direct the police to further investigate into the allegations levelled in FIR No. 101/2011. It is noticed that here in this petition also, apart from praying for quashing of the orders passed by both the courts below, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the trial court to allow his application to give directions to the police to conduct further investigation into the matter.;