1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 02.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 41/2009, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the Revisional Court and the trial Court as also the record of the trial Court.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/first informant lodged a report, being FIR No. 87 dated 12.8.2005 with the Police Station, Mathili Rathan, district Sri Ganganagar. The police investigated the matter and recorded the statements of petitioner/first informant, Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Moola Ram, Ram Chandra etc., who supported the case of the first informant, the petitioner herein. However, the police also recorded the statements of Kewal Ram, Heera Lai, Sheo Prakash, Shishpal etc. and submitted the negative final report before the trial Court. The petitioner/first informant filed a protest petition and in support of the protest petition, got himself examined as CW 1 under Section 200 of the Code and produced the witnesses CW 2 Ram Chandra, CW 3 Vimla, CW 4 Manohar Lai, CW 5 Moola Ram and CW 6 Sheo Prakash and their statements have been recorded by the trial Court on oath under Section 202 of the Code. By the order dated 15.11.2008, the trial Court accepted the final report and dismissed the protest petition, against which the petitioner/first informant preferred a revision petition but the Revisional Court did not interfere with the order of the trial Court. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/first informant that right from the date of lodging the First Information Report, the witnesses therein have supported the case of the petitioner/first informant; however for the reasons best known to the police, the police recorded the statements of some of the witnesses noticed above, who have no concern with the occurrence in question, rather statement of such witnesses has no relevance to the occurrence as alleged by the first informant and on the basis of statement of such witnesses, the police submitted the negative final report, whereas from the statement of the first informant and other witnesses, CW 1 to CW 6 recorded under Section 161 of the Code as well as on oath before trial Court, prima facie there is a ground to proceed against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 365, 382, 504, 452, IPC etc.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that the witnesses, on whose statement police relied upon, did not hear hue and cry and, therefore, had there been the occurrence as stated by the first informant, then there should have been some hue and cry, which they did not hear and in the village also. Such witnesses did not hear about the occurrence, as alleged from the villagers. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that had the complainant party been inflicted the slaps and fist-blows then there should have been some external injuries, whereas there is no medical evidence regarding suffering of the external injuries by Ram Chandra or the first informant and, therefore, the police has rightly filed the negative final report.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. On close scrutiny of the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses Krishan Lai, Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Moola Ram, Ram Chandra, Shiv Prakash etc. recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code during the investigation, as also the statements of these witnesses recorded by