1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

2. Pursuant to private complaint matter was sent for investigation in view of provisions of section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. On investigation, police filed negative final report. The learned Magistrate accepted the same thereby refusing to take cognizance. A revision petition was filed by the complainant, which was then accepted and cognizance was taken against petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that revisional court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of section 398 Criminal Procedure Code. If at all the revisional court has accepted the revision petition the matter was required to be remanded to the court below as per aforesaid provision. Hence, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2009. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that if the order is quashed and set aside on the grounds urged by learned counsel for petitioners then this court can direct for remand of the case to the Magistrate concerned pursuant to the observations made by revisional court.

4. To this, learned counsel for petitioners has no objection.

5. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that revisional order needs modification to the extent that revisional court could not have taken cognizance at its own rather in view of section 398 Criminal Procedure Code matter should have been sent to the Magistrate. In view of aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby modified to the extent that the matter would be sent back to the Magistrate who will look into the matter and then take a decision as to whether cognizance should be taken or not. The order of cognizance passed by the revisional court is accordingly quashed and set aside so as the consequential order, if any. The matter is now to be looked into by the competent Magistrate in view of section 398 Criminal Procedure Code.Petition allowed.

*******