(1.) By the instant criminal revision under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code hereinafter), the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.6.2005passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (for short, the Revisional Court hereafter) in Criminal Revision No. 28/2005, whereby the Revisional Court set aside theorder dated 1-2-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Balesar, district Jodhpur (for short, the trial Court hereinafter) accepted the Final Report No. 25/2000 arising out of FIR No.81/2000, Police Station, Balesar, and dismissed the protest petition filed by the non-petitioner No.2.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. By the impugned order, the Revisioinal Court, while partly allowing the revision petition filed by the non-petitioner No.2, directed the trial to take cognizance of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act hereinafter). Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order of the Revisional Court directing the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence is beyond the scope of Section 398 of the Code.
(3.) Section 398 of the Code reads as under:- 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 Magistrates 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 Sec. 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 has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.