Judgment : The revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 10.1.2006 made in Crl RC No.80 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Court (FTC.No.I), Tirunelveli, confirming the order dated 7.4.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli in Cr MP No. 1292 of 2005 in CC No.27 of 2005. 2. A case in Cr No.554 of 1997 for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC has been registered and final report has been filed for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. After examination of some witnesses, the prosecution has filed a petition seeking to alter the charges into 307 IPC. On enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. The present revision petition has been filed by the de facto-complainant by way of second revision before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the first respondent- police has taken up the proceedings and the same was dismissed. Since the first respondent did not follow it further, the present revision petition has been filed by the de facto-complainant himself. It is further contended that there are sufficient materials to proceed under Section 307 IPC and the orders passed by the Courts below must be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents 2 to 4 submits that the present petition is a second revision petition, which is prohibited under law. Moreover, the trial and the appellate Courts have taken into consideration the relevant aspects of the request made by the prosecution and has rightly concluded that such a petition is without any merit. It is obvious that only to wreck vengeance, such a petition has been filed by the de facto -complainant and the same must be dismissed. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. Initially, the first respondent-police has taken up the cause before the trial and revisional jurisdictions and it has been dismissed by way of a considered order. I do not find any merit of a considered order. I do not find any merit in this revision petition to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Moreover, the present petition has been filed by way of second revision, which is prohibited under law. I do not find any merit of a considered order. I do not find any merit in this revision petition to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Moreover, the present petition has been filed by way of second revision, which is prohibited under law. Further, this Court finds that there is no extraordinary reason to grant the relief sought for in this case. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl MP is also dismissed.