P.K. Lohra, J.

1. Accused-petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 29th of April 2016, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, 'learned revisional Court'), whereby the learned revisional Court, while dismissing the revision petition, has affirmed order dated 17th of October, 2015, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court').

2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this misc. petition are that complainant Mahendra Singh submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station Jaitaran on 12th of May 2015 stating therein that on 26th of March 2016 he received messages on his cell-phone from mobile No. 9829607418 which were also sent to Devaram and Motilal having mobile Nos. 9783900753 and 8442090507 respectively. In the written report, the complainant alleged that these messages have outraged the religious feelings of a class and same tantamount to insulting its religious beliefs. It is further stated in the report that the sender of the messages had intended to disturb religious harmony and tranquility. The SHO concerned registered FIR No. 168/2015 for offences punishable under Section 295A, 504 and 509 IPC. The matter is investigated thoroughly and charge-sheet against petitioner for the aforesaid offences is submitted before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and thereafter vide its order dated 17th of October 2015 framed charges. Being aggrieved by the framing of charges, the petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional Court by the order impugned dated 29th of April 2015 rejected revision petition of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the messages which were sent from the mobile phone cannot be construed as offending so as to outrage religious feelings of the complainant or disturbing his religious beliefs. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that no offence under Section 295A is made out and the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court has not at all cared to examine this vital fact. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel has also submitted that from a bare reading of FIR and the material collected during investigation, offences under Section 504 and 509 are not made out, and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court is per se vulnerable and therefore cannot be sustained.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently urged that the messages sent by accused-petitioner are not only objectionable but are also offending so as to constitute all the three offences. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has framed the charges after considering the charge-sheet and allied papers threadbare and the said order has also been examined by the learned revisional Court while exercising its power of judicial review, therefore, in that background the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that circulating such messages by the petitioner in a sensitive area of Nimaj town was an affirmative attempt on his part to disturb communal harmony and therefore no interference is warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor lastly contends that inherent powers of this Court are though wide but are required to be exercised with great care and circumspection very sparingly and the present one is not a case wherein it is desirable to exercise power of second judicial review for preventing abuse of process of the Court or to otherwise secure ends of justice.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and per