1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 10.7.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Tonk Distt. Tonk in Cr. Revision No. 34/2014 whereby the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Cr. Case No. 47/2008 has been upheld whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

2. The short facts of the case are that Junior Engineer, PWD Shri Harish Ahuja submitted a written report with the allegation that on 25.3.2003, Kalu Harijan breaking the wall of Dak Bungalow, installed a new gate on which FIR No. 91/2003 was registered. During the course of investigation, it has been brought on record that the petitioners have purchased the land under due title. Shri Aziz-Ul-Haq has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioners on 6.10.2003 and Aziz-Ul-Haq was having the right over the land through Nawab of Tonk Ismail Ali Khan. All these facts have been investigated in FIR No. 91/2003 and negative final report has been filed. After investigation, notice has been issued to the complainant but in spite of notice he did not appear before the court below and on 20.2.2004 after considering the entire evidence available on record and conclusion of the Investigating Officer, negative final report has been accepted by the competent court but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the fresh investigation has been started without any intimation to the petitioner as well as without any permission of the Court and thereafter charge-sheet 23/2008 has been filed against the petitioners and the court below has mechanically without considering the fact that earlier negative final report has been accepted by the court, cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and revision has also been dismissed, hence this petition.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that cognizance order is totally per verse and liable to be quashed as earlier negative final report has been accepted by the court vide its order dated 20.2.2004 and thereafter without the permission of the court, the police was not competent to investigate the matter and his further contention is that charge-sheet 23/2008 is not having any reference as regards to previous investigation which shows that the police has started fresh investigation wiping out the earlier investigation and the Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that fresh investigation is unwarranted and other contention of the petitioners is that the court was not competent to take cognizance against the petitioners as on earlier occasion, negative final report has been accepted and looking to the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. when the order has attained finality, the second cognizance is barred and on merits of the case, the contention of the petitioners is that they are bonafide purchasers. They have not made any false representation or inducement to anyone. They have purchased the property under the registered sale deed and on the allegations, the highest case of civil nature could be made out which has been given the colour of criminality, hence the cognizance and pursuant to cognizance, the further proceedings be quashed against the petitioners.Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that when new facts have arisen in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer was authorised to investigate further and an additional report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been presented which was within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer. The cognizance has rightly been taken against the petitioners which has been upheld in revision, hence in the garb of this petition second revision is not maintainable and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the