Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant petition impugns the order dated November 11, 1997 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City, whereby application under section 190 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioners, was rejected. (2). Brief resume of the facts is that learned Court below took cognizance under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) on a complaint submitted by N.P. No.2 Guru Bachan Singh Bagga on March 17, 1993 and summoned the petitioner. An application under section 190 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner seeking discharge from the offences on November 23, 1994. Learned Court below dismissed the application vide impugned order. (3). Admittedly order taking cognizance was not assailed by the petitioners by filing revision in the higher Court. Under Section 190 Cr.P.C a Magistrate can take cognizance of offence upon receiving complaint or upon a police report or upon information received from any person. A Magistrate can not pass order of discharge under this section. (4). In Distt. Manager Food Corporation vs. Jaya Shankar (1) it was held that an order of taking cognizance is in the nature of final order. That being so, under Section 362 Cr.P.C. a Judicial Magistrate can not alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This application submitted by the petitioner was not maintainable. It is not necessary for me to enter into merits of the case. I see no good reason to interfere with the impugned order. (5). Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith.