JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 155/2004, whereby the Revisional Court set aside the order dated 21.6.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 511/2004, and directed the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 452, 336, 323, 504/149 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioners and summon them by warrant. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view the provisions of Section 398 of the Code, the Revisional Court ought not have directed the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the counsel for the complainant- respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned order. Section 398 of the Code reads as under: "398.-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 Magistrate 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 had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made." 4. In Ramsingh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 563 , while explaining the scope of Section 398 of the Code, this Court observed that in revision, the Court of Sessions cannot direct the trial Court to take cognizance, but only a direction to hold further inquiry can be given. 5. In Ramsingh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 563 , while explaining the scope of Section 398 of the Code, this Court observed that in revision, the Court of Sessions cannot direct the trial Court to take cognizance, but only a direction to hold further inquiry can be given. 5. In Lalita (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2004 (2) R.Cr.D. 545 (Raj.) , this Court held that in view of the provisions of Sections 398 of the Code, the Revisional Court could have only directed for passing of fresh order after further inquiry. Explaining the meaning of "further inquiry", this Court held that further inquiry only means reconsideration of the existing evidence. 6. In view of the settled law and keeping in view the provisions of Section 398 of the Code, the order of the Revisional Court, to the extent of directing the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners, cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Revisional Court to the extent of directing the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and summoning them by summons/warrant, is hereby set aside. However, the trial Court is directed to make further inquiry into the matter and pass appropriate fresh order after reconsideration of the existing material on record. It is made clear that "further inquiry" means re-consideration of existing material. The interim order dated 7.10.2004 is hereby vacated and the stay petition stands disposed of. The record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.Revision petition partly allowed. *******