Ashok Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19109

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19109

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5716/2015

Important Points

Under Section 398 of the Cr.P.C., a Revisional Court lacks the jurisdiction to direct a Trial Court to take cognizance against an accused; its power is limited to directing further inquiry into the matter.

Subject

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure

Act Referred

Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.498-A
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.156, S.398

Headnote

The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Revisional Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically concerning the scope of Section 398. The petitioners challenged a direction issued by the Additional Sessions Judge to the Trial Court to take cognizance against them under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, following the acceptance of a Final Report (Negative) and the rejection of a protest petition by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The primary issue is whether a Revisional Court possesses the jurisdiction to direct a Trial Court to take cognizance of an offence. The court reasoned that under Section 398 Cr.P.C., the power of the Sessions Judge or High Court is limited to directing 'further inquiry' into a dismissed complaint or a discharged person, and does not extend to mandating the taking of cognizance. The order impugned passed by the Revisional Court dated 24.09.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tarun Jain
For the Respondents: Manvendra Singh Shekhawat

Table of Content
1. procedural history involving the filing of a complaint, the submission of a negative final report, and the subsequent revisional order directing cognizance. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. arguments regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the revisional court to order the taking of cognizance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. interpretation of section 398 cr.p.c. limiting the revisional court's power to directing further inquiry rather than mandating cognizance. (Para 7 , 8)
4. quashing of the unauthorized revisional order and remittal of the case for fresh inquiry by the magistrate. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 24.09.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Sawaimadhopur, by which the revision petition submitted by the respondent No.2 was allowed and a direction has been issued to the Court below for taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners before the concerned Court, who sent the matter for investigation under Section 156 Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Kotwali, District Sawaimadhopur, where an FIR was registered, however, after investigation Final Report (Negative) No.35/2007 was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Court. Counsel submits that the protest petition submitted by the respondent was rejected and Final Report (Negative) was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur vide order dated 09.03.2011. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid, a revision petition was submitted by the respondent before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Sawaimadhopur. The aforesaid revision petition was allowed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 24.09.2015 and the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in FR No.35/2007 was quashed and set-aside and a direction was issued to the Court below for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Counsel submits that the Revisional Court has no such jurisdiction for issuing directions to the Trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioners, hence, the order impugned passed by the Revisional Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramsingh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Raj 1138.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners.

5. Heard and considered the submissions.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that the First Information Report lodged by the complainant-respondent bearing No.81/2007 with the Police Station Kotwali, Distrit Sawaimadhopur resulted in Final Report (Negative) No.35/2007 and the said Final Report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur while rejecting the protest petition of the complainant-respondent vide order dated 09.03.2021. Thereafter, a revision petition was submitted by the complainant against the aforesaid order before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court vide its impugned order dated 24.09.2025 has quashed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and has issued directions to the Court below for taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Revisional Court possesses no such power or jurisdiction to issue such directions in the light of Section 398 Cr.P.C. Section 398 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

“398. Power to orde rinquiruy.- On examining any record under section 397 or ot