JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Perused the office report and the relevant record. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint for the offences under section 500, 501 and 504 I.P.C. against 45 persons in the court of learned Munsif District and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who after recording the evidence under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. by his order dated 1-10-93 held that prima facie no offence under section 500 and 501 I.P.C. was made out and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2. Jodhpur, who by his order dated 22-1-94 dismissed the same holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was neither illegal nor arbitrary nor against the evidence recorded in the case. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The Office has pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner despite ample time did not clear the position as to how this writ petition is maintainable. 3. The contention of Shri Gehlot is that since second criminal revision is barred, the petitioner has been left with no remedy and as such this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for finding out the correctness, propriety and legality of the order: passed by the lower courts. He has placed reliance on Girdhar Lal and Anr. v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Allahabad -787 and Mahan Singh & Anr. v. Rana Pratap, A.I.R 1960 Punjab -160. 4. 1 have carefully gone through these cases, which pertain to U.P. Panchayat Act and Punjab Gram Panchayat Act respectively, where the revisional powers of the High Court were taken away by those Acts. It was held by the Allahabad and Punjab High Courts that the High Court has the power of superintendent under Article 227(1), that the Gram Panchayat is a court and that in exercise of the power under Article 227(1), the High Court can set aside an order passed in complete disregard of basic principle of judicial procedure. 5. It was held by the Allahabad and Punjab High Courts that the High Court has the power of superintendent under Article 227(1), that the Gram Panchayat is a court and that in exercise of the power under Article 227(1), the High Court can set aside an order passed in complete disregard of basic principle of judicial procedure. 5. I respectfully agree with the principle of law pronounced in those cases, but the facts of those cases are clearly distinguishable with that facts of the instant case, because under section 397 Cr.P.C. a remedy by way of revision was available to the petitioner, who availed the same and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected his revision, petition. Under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. second revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge is legally not maintainable. Since remedy by way of revision has already been provided, provision of section 482 Cr.P.C. can not also be pressed into service. It is true that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has the power of superintendence on all subordinate courts, but powers under Arts 226 & 227 are discretionary and should be invoked only in genuine and deserving cases, where there is some contravention of the provisions of the Constitution. 6. I have carefully perused the complaint and the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate as also the impugned orders In my considered opinion,it is not at all a fit case. wherein this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence for the reasons mentioned above, office objection is sustained and this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******