JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, he filed an application before the learned Addl. Chief Justice Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur for recording of statement of complainant and witnesses before the court under Section 164 Cr.PC. but that application was not even taken in court, whereupon he filed another application in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur which was also rejected vide order dated 24.10.2005 observing that there was no evidence available on record that said application was filed before the court of learned ACJM and, therefore, no direction could be given to the said court to entertain such application. The said complainant Vijay Bhasin also filed a Writ petition being DBCW Pet. No.8964/05 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The observations of Division Bench read as under: "This writ petition has been filed questioning the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur dismissing the application of the applicant for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. Without going into the question as to whether the statement of a witness can be recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. at his instance without any prayer to that effect by the investigating agency, we are of the view that the petitioner can challenge the order within the frame work of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed." 3. Therefore, against the said act or omission of learned ACJM No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned ACJM could not have refused to take the said application on record and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law on the said application. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. Appearing for respondent No.3 Sh. Vipin Gupta, submit that this misc. petition is misconceived because firstly there is nothing on record that any such application was filed before the learned ACJM and secondly on the request of said complainant only, investigation has since been changed and has been handed over to CID (C.B.), and there investigation is in progress and since the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. petition is misconceived because firstly there is nothing on record that any such application was filed before the learned ACJM and secondly on the request of said complainant only, investigation has since been changed and has been handed over to CID (C.B.), and there investigation is in progress and since the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. can be recorded by the court only at the request of Investigating Officer, any such application to the said court was misconceived. 6. Be that as it may, it is expected that the court in which any such application is moved, takes up such application and passes appropriate order in accordance with law. The refusal to take an application in the court cannot obviously give rise to the document which could be produced before the Higher court refusing to take any such application. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, though it may have lost its significance now that such application was not decided by the court of learned ACJM No. 2, but it is certainly expected of the court that whenever any such application is filed, to take that application on record, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Nothing beyond that is expected to be observed in this case. 7. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.Petition Disposed of with above observations. *******