JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr. PC by Babulal accused is directed against the order of learned Sub-judicial Magistrate, Alwar dated 17th January, 1986 taking cognizance under section 376 and 323 IPC and the order of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 16th February, 1987 upholding the order of the learned Magistrate. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecutrix Smt. Hrishi Mala who has filed the present private complaint had also lodged a FIR of the same incident on 8th August, 1985 of before the Superintendent of Police, Alwar. The police after investigation the case had given a final report in the matter on 28th September, 1985. Mr. Sharma also submitted that in a cross case under sections 341, 323, 147 filed by the petitioner, the police had filed a challan against these accused persons who are relatives of the prosecutrix. It has thus been submitted that the present private complaint filed by the prosecutrix Smt. Harishi Mala is totally false and has been lodged on account of ill-will and malice. Mr. Sharma therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under sections 376 and 373 IPC. 3. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor contested the petition and submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the Lower Courts in passing the impugned orders. 4. It is a case in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate in offence under section 376 IPC which is only triable by a Sessions Judge. The magistrate has only taken cognizance in the case and he would commit the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court before proceedings in the case would hear the petitioner on the question of framing charge in the case. The petitioner is free to bring out all the circumstances which have been argued before this Court before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of hearing arguments regarding framing of charge in the case. In my view it is premature for the petitioner to have rushed to this Court under section 482 Cr. PC for invoking inherent power of this Court. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to argue the case before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of framing of the charge. In my view it is premature for the petitioner to have rushed to this Court under section 482 Cr. PC for invoking inherent power of this Court. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to argue the case before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of framing of the charge. Learned Sessions Judge would consider the entire matter and will decided whether any charge has to be framed in the case or not. So far as the learned Magistrate is concerned, I see no error in his order in taking cognizance in the case at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above.Petition dismissed. *******