JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur dated 4.8.88 framing charges against the accused-petitioner in Sessions Case No. 3/88. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that one Radhey Shyam had lodged a written report at police station Sawai Madhopur on 11.5.78 wherein it was alleged by him that his sister Prem Devi is a tenant of Babulal Gogaria. In the same house is living Pooran Singh a police officer with his children. Two-three more tenants are staying in the same house. On the night of 8.5.78 at about 1.00 a.m. Pooran Singh attempted to commit rape with Sampatbai. A complaint about this incident was lodged by Prem Devi to D.I.G. for enquiry. On 11.5.78 at 12.00 or 1.00 in the day Pooran Singh's son Munna abused Prem Devi and threatened her with death. Siraj Ahmad and the complainant Radhey Shyam in between had gone out about 3.00 p.m. At that time Sampat was sleeping in the room on the first floor and her sister had gone for taking meals. Munna at that time was seen coming out of the room with a bottle 3/4 filled with kerosene oil. Soon thereafter smoke was noticed and people rushed to the room. The door was opened and Prem Devi was found dead. She is alleged to be expired due the burning. On receipt of this report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered. The complainant had also filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur on 23.5. 78 on which an enquiry was made and cognziance for the offence under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC was taken against the accused petitioner Pooran Singh and Mohan Singh. Both these persons filed an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order of C.J.M. Sawai Madhopur dated 4.8.79 taking cognizance against (sic) order in revision which was filed before Sessions Judge. Revision took an unusual period of five years in its disposal. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 3.8.84 dismissed the revision petition. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before this Court was dismissed by me on 11.12.86. Thereafter the case was committed to Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 4.8.88 framed charges against the accused for offence under Sections 302 302/120-B and 302/149 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 3.8.84 dismissed the revision petition. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before this Court was dismissed by me on 11.12.86. Thereafter the case was committed to Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 4.8.88 framed charges against the accused for offence under Sections 302 302/120-B and 302/149 IPC. It is against this order framing charge that the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Sajjan Singh raised a preliminary objection that this petition should be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material fact that a petition based on the same grounds against the order taking cognizance has-been dismissed by this Court on 11.12.1986 and no mention about the same has been brought to the notice of the Court. The court if would have perused the grounds of challenge made in the earlier petition and if there were no new grounds the petition would not have been entertained. Even otherwise it cannot be said as to what would have been the impression of the court and consequently the result of the case could have been different had all the facts would have been brought to the notice of the Court squarely. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that foundation for an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the stage of taking cognizance is different than the one at the time of framing of the charge. It is submitted that degree of application of the mind is different at both the stages hence even if that fact has not been brought on record still this petition should be decided on merits. It is then submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken note of the fact that there is not an iota of evidence on record to connect the accused with a crime. It is submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession of the petitioner or co-accused so as to show their implication in the case. It is submitted that in the instant case investigation has been conducted by highly placed police officials and they did not find any case against the petitioner and submitted final report. There was no warrant for coming to a conclusion other than what the police had arrived at in the instant case. It is submitted that in the instant case investigation has been conducted by highly placed police officials and they did not find any case against the petitioner and submitted final report. There was no warrant for coming to a conclusion other than what the police had arrived at in the instant case. Learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in drawing inference from surmises and conjectures without there being no legal evidence on record. His submission is that the entire case is based on improvement made in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and they should have been taken note of objectively by the learned Sessions Judge before framing the charge. It is submitted that there is no evidence direct or circumstantial to bring out a conspiracy which was a cause about abatement of the commission of the offence. It is submitted that there must be some primary evidence on which the edifice of the entire prosecution story be made. It was therefore prayed that there was no material before the learned Sessions Judge for which he could have held that there is material to proceed with the case and frame the charge hence it prayed that accused should be discharged. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is overwhelming evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. He submits that in cases of conspiracy it is almost impossible to conceive of direct evidence. The evidence has to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and which are ample in the present case. It is submitted that there is no fresh material till date from the date of earlier rejection and the petitioner is only using dilatory tactics in delaying the proceedings hence it is submitted that the petition be dismissed and the file be sent to the trial court with direction that case should be taken day-to-day and completed. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. Dealing with the preliminary objections first it may be observed that factually there is no note to the effect that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. had been filed in this Court against the order of cognizance and same has been dismissed on merits. A copy of the said order of rejection was also not before the Court at the time when notice was issued. A copy of the said order of rejection was also not before the Court at the time when notice was issued. This alone can be a ground for rejection of this petition. Though I am inclined to believe the statement of the learned counsel that he was not informed of the rejection of petition against cognizance by his client. There is yet another reason to accept this part of the statement of the learned counsel because learned Sessions Judge has also made no reference of order rejecting the earlier petition by this Court in his order framing charge. But besides this ground for rejection order framing charge is elaborate and learned Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter which are not inconsistent with the order which I had passed in the earlier petition on 11.12.1986. There is no change in circumstances or material before the Court other than one on which the mind was applied. It is true that application of mind at the stage of cognizance is little different than that the application of mind at the time of charge. This Court could go deep into the matter but in view of the circumstance that observation made by this Court on 11.12.1986 in its earlier order has been independently looked into by the learned Sessions Judge and he having taken a view that there is a prima facie case to proceed against accused for which charge should be framed. I do not find that this order can be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioner could have had a good case provided the Division Bench authority of this Court reported in Nemi Chand versus State of Rajasthan ( 1987(2) RLR 634 ), would not have come in his way where this Court has held that no revision petition is maintainable against the order framing charge. Since then the scope of interference by this Court is circumvented by the three factors mentioned in Section 482 Cr.P.C. and order framing charge in the instant case after the rejection of the earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be ipso facto be called to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence without going into the details of the case I deem it proper to dismiss the petition. Hence without going into the details of the case I deem it proper to dismiss the petition. The case is pending since long and I had already observed in earlier application that proceedings be expedited. The learned Sessions Judge shall now proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible.Petition dismissed. *******