JUDGMENT 1. - By this misc. petition the accused-petitioners have challaned the impugned order of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate Kaman dated 12.10.95 whereby cognizance has been taken against the accused-petitioners on protest petition. That order has been affirmed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 19.10.95. 2. Shri Naqvi has submitted that after investigation, no case was found by the police against the accused- petitioners Rahees & Shamher. On protest petition, learned Magistrate has not only taken cognizance against the petitioners but arrest warrants also have been issued. There is nothing on record, except the names of accused- petitioners in FIR and statement of informant. 3. Shri Biri Singh learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that misc.petition under section 482 Cr.RC. is not maintainable against the order of revisional Court. 4. Shri Naqvi has further submitted that there is no bar for the High Court from exercise its inherent powers and placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarppa & Others, [ 1995(4) SCC 41 ] , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: "While it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 481 (sic, 482), it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of court that the interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges." 5. Considering the view taken by their Lordships of Supreme Court, the misc. petition under section 482 Cr.RC. is maintainable. But considering tho material on record, I do not find any justification to interfere in the order of taking cognizance. But when the police has not found any case against the petitioners and FR has been given against them, there is no justification to issue arrest warrants against the petitioners. 6. petition under section 482 Cr.RC. is maintainable. But considering tho material on record, I do not find any justification to interfere in the order of taking cognizance. But when the police has not found any case against the petitioners and FR has been given against them, there is no justification to issue arrest warrants against the petitioners. 6. It is, therefore, the accused-petitioners Rahees & Shamsher are directed to surrender before the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur on or before 15.11.95. In case the petitioners surrender before the trial court on or before 15.11.95, they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes bail bond and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial court. The petitioners shall not be arrested till 15.11.95. In case the petitioners fail to surrender on or before 15.11.95, the arrest warrants so issued shall remain in force. 7. The order in case of petitioners, will not affect the merits in case of other co-accused persons. 8. The misc. petition is disposed of as indicated above. *******