The main legal point established is that the revisional court cannot direct the trial court to take cognizance, and the trial court must apply its mind independently before taking cognizance.

1. - Since both the above mentioned S.B. Criminal Revision Petition and the Criminal Misc. Petition related to the same controversy, both are being decided by this common order.

2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 591/2000 filed by the petitioner Gulab, Ram Kishan and Balu Ram is is directed against the order dated 18th of October, 2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Laxmangarh. District Sikar whereby, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 436 IPC and issued non-bailable warrants to produce these accused petitioners.

3. The facts related to both the cases are that in the present matter a complaint was filed by the complainant non-petitioner Ishwar Ram against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 436 IPC etc. The police after investigation, submitted a final report before the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate recorded statements of the witnesses of the complainant non-petitioner and after consider the facts of the case accepted the final report vide order dated 18th April, 1998 and did not take cognizance against the petitioners. Against that order the complainant non-petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar which was ultimately decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sikar (hereinafter referred to as `the learned revisional court'). The learned revisional court vide order dated 17.6.2000 accepted the revision petition filed by the complainant non-petitioner and set aside the order of the trial court and directed the trial court to take cognizance against the accused persons and to try the case. Against that order of the revisional court, the petitioners have filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 789/2000. Pursuant to the order of the learned revisional court, the matter went to the learned trial court and the learned trial court vide order dated 18th of October, 2000 took cognizance against the accused petitioners only on the ground of the order passed by the learned revisional court in the revision petition filed by the complainant non-petitioner. Against this order, S.B. Criminal Revisional Petition No. 591/2000 has been filed.

4. In both the matters, notices were issued to the complainant non-petitioner. Mr. Anoop Dhandh puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant non-petitioner in both the cases. Record of the case was called for. Arguments of both the sides including the learned Public Prosecutor are heard.

5. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that in the present matter, Section 398 Cr.PC. is relevant. It is settled law that in a revision petition, the revisional court cannot direct the trial court to take cognizance. At the most what the revisional court can do is to order for further inquiry into the matter. It is argued that the learned revisional court could not even indicate that In the matter any offence is made out and thus, it is patently wrong that the learned revisional court has directed the trial court to take cognizance and to proceed with the trial. It is also contended that the order dated 18.10.2000 is also illegal because while passing this order, the learned trial court has not as applied its mind and has simply said that in view of the order of the revisional court the trial court is taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners. Thus, it is contended that the revision petition as well as the Misc. Petition both should be allowed and the orders passed by the learned revisional court as well as by the trial court should be set aside.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has admitted that Section 398 Cr.P.C. is clear and looking to the provisions of Section 398 Cr.P.C. the learned revisional court could not have directed the learned trial court to take cognizance against the accused-petitioners and the learned revisional court should have remanded the case to the revisional court for further inquiry. He also states that the teamed trial co