JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The complainant respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. to the concerned Police Station, whereupon, the police registered a case and after completion of investigation submitted final report. The complainant filed a protest petition. The complainant examined herself and three witnesses, namely Banwari Lal, Sukhraj and Mohan Lal. The trial court, on consideration of the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.PC. dismissed the protest petition and accepted the final report vide his order dated 25.11.2002. The petitioner then filed a revision petition and the revisional court vide its order dated 25.11.2004 accepted the revision petition, and revered the order passed the trial court. Hence this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Having gone through the impugned order, it appears that the learned revisional court while setting aside the order of the trial court has directly taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 354, 504, 341 and 379 IPC against the petitioners and has summoned them to face trial. It further appears that the revisional court has failed to notice the provisions of Section 398 Cr.PC. which deal with power to order enquiry. Section 398 of the Code provides that 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 enquiry 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. 4. A perusal of the above provision makes it emphatically clear that the revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge) had no power to take cognizance of the offence. Even if the learned Addl. 4. A perusal of the above provision makes it emphatically clear that the revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge) had no power to take cognizance of the offence. Even if the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the order of the Magistrate dismissing the protest petition was not proper, all that he was empowered to do was to send the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction either to himself make a further enquiry into the matter or direct any of his subordinate Magistrates to make a further enquiry into the matter. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge himself was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence. In my considered view, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not correct in even observing that prima facie a case for taking cognizance of the offence is made out. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 25.11.2004 impugned in this petition is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to make further enquiry into the matter and then to proceed further in accordance with law.Petition allowed - Case remanded for further enquiry. *******