JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent - complainant and have also perused the material on record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a case was registered at Police Station Raghunathgarh under sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 323 IPC against the accused-petitioners on the basis of First Information Report filed by the complainant. On completion of investigation, the police filed final report and a protest petition was filed by the complainant against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. After recording the statements of complainant as well as his witnesses, learned Magistrate found no ground to proceed against the accused and he dismissed the complaint and F.R. was accepted by his order dated October 20, 2000. The complainant challenged this order by filling a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, who transferred the petition to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. By his impugned order dated September 17, 2001, learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar has allowed the revision petition. setaside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and directed the trial Court to take cognizance against the accused-petitioners Ramsingh, Dashrath Singh and Vijendra Singh under sections 448 and 323 IPC and proceed further as in the opinion of learned Additional Sessions Judge a prima facie case is made out against these accused. The petitioners have challenged this order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC. 3. Section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as under : "Power to order inquiry. The petitioners have challenged this order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC. 3. Section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as under : "Power to order inquiry. - On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged : Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made." 4. From the bare perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is clear that learned Sessions Judge could not direct the trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioners Ramsingh, Dashrath Singh and Vijendra Singh. He ought to have directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry into the complaint to himself any of the Magistrate subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be allowed in part. 5. The petition is partly allowed. While modifying the order dated September 17, 2001 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 1, Sikar and setting aside the direction issued by learned Additional Session Judge for taking cognizance against the petitioners Ramsingh, Dashrath Singh and Vijendra Singh, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar is directed to make further inquiry into the complaint and pass an appropriate order.The petitioner stands disposed of.Revision Partly Allowed - Order of Court of Session Modified as Above. *******