G.L.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 15.10.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu whereby he upheld the order dt. 17.2.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC against the petitioners.
(2.) MR . Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioners, points out that the police had given final report in the matter and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without recording evidence under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the order is not sustainable. The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gehlot, on the other hand, supporting the order, contends that the petitioners have already availed of the right of filing revision before the Sessions Judge, and therefore, this second revision in the garb of miscellaneous petition is not maintainable.
(3.) THERE is merit in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gehlot that this petition is nothing but second revision in the garb of miscellaneous petition. The second revision by the same party is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.;