ORDER

Gopal Krishna Vyas, J.—In this criminal revision filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 2.2.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand for framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 39, Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379, IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of framing charge is illegal because there is no material evidence for which charge can be framed. Further, it is pointed out that with regard to using electricity litigation is going on in various writ petitions and when there is provision that the matter can be compounded and petitioner deposited Rs. 2,50,000, then, there is no question of prosecuting the petitioner in this case, therefore, this revision petition may be allowed and order impugned dated 2.2.2007 may be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Ltd, Kankroli submits that before filing this revision petition against cognizance order the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous petition before this Court and said petition was registered as SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1391/2005, in which, order of cognizance passed by the Sessions Judge in criminal case No. 42 of 2005 was challenged, but, the co-ordinate Bench after taking into consideration entire facts of the case rejected said miscellaneous petition vide judgment dated 1.8.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out that although the main question of limitation was raised in the miscellaneous petition but before the revisional Court where the order of cognizance was challenged the petitioner did not challenge the order of taking cognizance for the offence, therefore, while taking into consideration the said fact the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the miscellaneous petition and, now, upon the same set of evidence the petitioner has preferred this revision petition when charges are framed against him. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to again challenge the order of charge on the ground that earlier order of cognizance was challenged on the ground of limitation, therefore, he cannot now challenge the order of charge without challenging the order of cognizance on merit.

5. As per the learned counsel for the respondent there is material available on record, upon which charges have been framed and pendency of other writ petitions and the fact that

Rs. 2,50,000 have been deposited by the petitioner does not help him to get the order of charge quashed in this revision petition. Therefore it is submitted that this revision petition may be dismissed.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it is revealed that order of cognizance was earlier challenged before this Court by the petitioner by way of filing SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1391 of 2005 but the said miscellaneous petition was dismissed. Upon perusal of the said order, it is further revealed that there is no whisper with regard to the order of taking cognizance by the trial Court, therefore, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the revisional jurisdiction while challenging the order of charge which is based upon the order of taking cognizance passed after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record by the trial Court. Once, the petitioner availed the remedy of filing revision petition before the revisional Court against the cognizance order and further remedy by way of filing petition under Section 482, CrPC in which the petitioner did not challenge the order of cognizance on merit, then, it will be deemed that the petitioner was not having any grievance with regard to order of cognizance passed by the trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on record.

7. In this case, I have perused the order impugned dated 2.2.2007, in which the trial Court gave reasons for framing charge. Order dated 2.2.2007 is as follows: