S. B. SAKRIKAR. J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall, govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three Criminal Revisions based on similar facts involving common question of law. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid Criminal Revision Nos. 184/96, 185/96 and 186/96 are directed against the order dated 30th Nov. , 1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision Nos. 145/95, 147/95 and 146/95 respectively, thereby reversing the order dated 26th April, 1995, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maheshwar in Case No. 0/ 94, refusing to register the complaint against the applicants under section 203, Cr. P. C, by the non-applicant Maheshchandra. ( 3 ) FACTS of the aforesaid criminal revisions stated in brief are as under:i. Cr1 Revision No. 184/96:the non-applicant Maheshchandra filed the complaint against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Maheshwar on the averment that he entered into an agreement of hire purchase with the complainant regarding bus bearing Registration No. MBO-967 in July, 1991 and the applicant obtained Rs. 1,25,000/- from the non-applicant. It was agreed between the parties at the applicant shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the non-applicant in 36 equal instalments of Rs: 7,500/ -. It is also stated in the complaint that the applicant obtained second finance of Rs. 1,40,000/- dishonestly without paying the first finance to the non-applicant - and fraudulently entered into an agreement concealing the first one. On the aforesaid facts, the non-applicant prayed for the action to be taken against the applicants under sections 120-B. 406,420 and 422 I. P. C. On filing the aforesaid complaint, the statement of non-applicant was recorded under section 200, Cr. P. C. and in support of his statement, statement of one Mohd. Nasim was also recorded. The report from Police Maheshwar was also requisitioned. Learned Magistrate on considering the evidence recorded in the case and perusing the documents dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr. P. C. holding that the matter purely relates to the Civil Transaction. Aggrieved, the non-applicant has filed revision application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar. By the impugned order, learned ASJ allowed the revision application holding that there is sufficient material on record for taking cognizance against the applicant under sections 406, 420, I. P. C. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision petition. ii. Aggrieved, the non-applicant has filed revision application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar. By the impugned order, learned ASJ allowed the revision application holding that there is sufficient material on record for taking cognizance against the applicant under sections 406, 420, I. P. C. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision petition. ii. Criminal Revision No. 185/ 96: The non-applicant filed the complaint against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maheshwar on the averment that he entered into an agreement of hire purchase with the complainant regarding the bus beartlig Registration No. MBG 8282 on 29th March. 1991 and the applicants obtained Rs. 1,60,000/- from the complainant/ non-applicant. It was agreed between the parties that the applicants shall pay the aforesaid amount in monthly instalment of Rs. 4,400/ -. The applicants got the vehicle repaired on 13-10-1992 and entered into an additional agreement of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. The applicants without making the payment to the non-applicant sold the vehicle putting the non- applicant to a great loss. On the aforesaid facts, the non-applicant prayed for the action to be taken against the applicants under sectionsl20-B, 406, 420 and 422, I. P. C. On filing the aforesaid complaint, the statement of non-applicant was recorded under section 200, Cr. P. C. and in support of his statement, the statement of one Mohd. Nasim was also recorded. The report from Police Maheshwar was also requisitioned. Learned Magistrate on considering the evidence recorded in the case and perusing the documents dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr. P. C. holding that the matter purely relates to the civil transaction. Aggrieved, the non-applicant has filed, revision application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar. By the impugned order, learned ASJ allowed the revision application holding that there is sufficient material on record for taking cognizance against the applicants under sections 406, 420, I. P. C. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision petition. iii. Criminal Revision No. 186/96. The non-applicant filed the complaint against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maheshwar on the averment that he entered into an agreement of hire purchase with the complainant/non-applicant regarding the bus bearing Registration No. MP 10/150 and the applicant obtained Rs. 1,12,500/- from the non-applicant. It was agreed between the parties that the applicant shall pay the aforesaid amount in 30 instalments of Rs. 3,650/per month. 1,12,500/- from the non-applicant. It was agreed between the parties that the applicant shall pay the aforesaid amount in 30 instalments of Rs. 3,650/per month. The applicants did not pay the instalments and dishonestly committed criminal breach of trust. On the aforesaid fact, the non-applicant prayed for the action to be taken against the applicants under sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 422, I. P. C. On filing the aforesaid complaint, the statement of non-applicant was recorded under section 200, Cr. P. C. and in support of his statement, the statement of one Mohd. Nasim was also recorded. The report from Police Maheshwar was also requisitioned. Learned Magistrate on considering the evidence recorded in the case and perusing the documents dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr. P. C. holding that the matter purely relates to the civil transaction. Aggrieved, the non-applicant has filed revision application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar. By the impugned order, learned ASJ allowed the revision application holding that there is sufficient material on record for taking cognizance against the applicants under sections 406, 420, I. P. C. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision petition. ( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel Shri B. A. Nigam appearing for the applicants and Shri Sinha learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant, all the aforesaid Criminal Revisions were heard finally. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contended that learned ASJ has committed an error in reversing the order of the Magistrate and holding that there is sufficient material available on record for taking cognizance against the applicants under sections 406, 420, I. P. C. The counsel invited my attention to section 398, Cr. P. C. under which Revisional Court on examining the record of any criminal Court subordinate to it under section 397, Cr. P. C. may direct the Judicial Magistrate or the Magistrate subordinate to him to make further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section 4/204 of Cr. P. C. The order of the ASJ for taking cognizance under sections 406 and 420, I. P. C. is without jurisdiction and illegal. The counsel relied on the decisions of this Court reported in Rajaram Gupta and Ors. v. Dharamchand and Ors. P. C. The order of the ASJ for taking cognizance under sections 406 and 420, I. P. C. is without jurisdiction and illegal. The counsel relied on the decisions of this Court reported in Rajaram Gupta and Ors. v. Dharamchand and Ors. and G. D. Singh v. State of M. P. ( 6 ) IN reply, learned counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned order of the Additional Sessions I Judge. ( 7 ) ON considering the facts and rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and the law applicable to the cases at hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants deserves to be accepted. ( 8 ) LEARNED Additional sessions Judge on examining the records of the instant cases, came to the conclusion that if the Magistrate has committed any error in dismissing the complaint filed on behalf of the non-applicant under section 203, Cr. P. C. then in view of section 398, Cr. P. C. he has only jurisdiction to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Magistrate subordinate to him to make further enquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed by the Magistrate under section 203, Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) IN Rajarams case (supra) this Court while considering section 398, Cr. P. C. has held that the only order that can be made by the revising Court u/ s 398 Cr. P. C. 1973 is for further enquiry. No direction there for in the nature of putting any impediment in the judicial discretion to be exercised by the lower Court has to be made. Any direction or instruction indicating the manner in which further enquiry is to be made and particularly whether to frame a particular charge can also not be given, A similar view was reiterated in case of G. D. Singhts case (supra ). ( 10 ) IN view of the facts and the law applicable to the instant cases, I find that Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar has committed illegality and acted beyond his jurisdiction in reversing the order of the Magistrate and taking cognizance for the, offence punishable under sections 406, 420, I. P. C. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in all the aforesaid three revisions being without jurisdiction and illegal is deserves to be demolished. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, all these three aforesaid Criminal Revisions are allowed. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, all these three aforesaid Criminal Revisions are allowed. The impugned order, of the learned ASJ is quashed and all these three cases are remanded to the concerned Magistrate in view of Provisions to section 398, Cr. P. C. for a further enquiryt and appropriate action in accordance with law. ( 12 ) THE non-applicant/complainant Is directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Maheshwar on 6th May. 1997 for taking further steps In the matter. ( 13 ) COPY of this order be placed in the record of the connected Criminal Revision Nos. 185/96 and 186/96. Revisions allowed. Matters remanded to Magistrate for further enquiry. .