1. - These criminal miscellaneous petitions are directed against order dated 5.1.11 of Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Balotra headquarter Barmer, whereby revision petitions preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 15.4.10 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Barmer taking cognizance against the petitioner-Mohanlal for offences u/ss. 376, 342 IPC and against the petitioner-Palu Devi for offences u/ss 376/109, 342 IPC, stand dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the complainant-Bagta Ram submitted a written report before Superintendent of Police, Barmer with the allegations that his grant daughter, student of class X studying in Government Secondary School, Ranasar was restrained by Palu Devi, a para teacher, in the class room after the school hours and thereafter, the petitioner-Mohan Lal, a teacher came in the room, Palu Devi bolted the door from the outside and Mohan Lal tried to commit rape on her.

3. The written report submitted as aforesaid, was referred by the Superintendent of Police to the SHO, Police Station, Dhorimana with the directions to register the case and take necessary action.

4. The SHO, PS., Dhorimana accordingly registered. an FIR being No. 127/08, on 5.9.08, for offences u/ss. 354, 376/511 IPC against the petitioners herein and the investigation commenced. In the meantime, a complaint was filed by the prosecutrix before the Judicial Magistrate, Barmer against the petitioners alleging commission of offences u/ss 376, 342, 120-B IPC. The complaint was referred by the learned Magistrate u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. to the Police Station, Dhorimana for investigation.

5. During investigation, the statements of prosecutrix were recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Besides, the prosecutrix also got recorded her statements u/s 164 Cr.PC. before the Magistrate. The police recorded the statements of eye witnesses Laduram and Ashuram, the students and the teachers of the school etc. After conclusion of the investigation, the police filed negative Final Report concluding that the allegations levelled are false.

6. The prosecutrix filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate, who examined the prosecutrix u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant-Bagta Ram and other witnesses namely, Ashuram, Laduram and Babulal u/s 202 Cr.PC. After due examination of the Final Report submitted by the police, the statements of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 200 Cr.PC. so also the statements of other witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.PC, the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that the sufficient grounds exist for taking cognizance for the offences against the petitioners and accordingly, vide order dated 15.4.10 took cognizance against the petitioner-Mohanlal for offences u/ss. 376, 342 IPC and against the petitioner Palu Devi for offences u/ss. 376/109 & 342 IPC and summoned them by issuing arrest warrant.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred separate revision petitions before the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer which were later transferred for disposal to Additional Sessions Judge (FT.), Balotra.

8. After consideration of the rival submissions, the revision petitions have been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Balotra by the order impugned holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners does not suffer from any legal error warranting interference by the court in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, these petitions.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the challan papers, the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses recorded u/s 200/202 Cr.RC. and other material on record.

10. Learned counsels -for the petitioners contended that the orders impugned passed by the court below are contrary to facts and law and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsels urged that after due investigation, the investigating age