JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Cr. Case No. 349/2008, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case in relation to same incident, cognizance was taken earlier and subsequently cognizance has also been taken, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court taking cognizance against the accused petitioners requires to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that this revision petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that revision petition is required to be filed before the District Judge in view of decision rendered by this Court in the case of Natwar Lal & 67 Ors. v. State & Ors. reported in 2008(3) WLC page 497 : 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj) 617 . 4. I have considered the submissions made before me. 5. The legal position is not disputed before me that revision petition also lies before the District Judge against the order taking cognizance in a case. It is also not disputed that directly the revision petition has been filed before this Court. In the case of Natwar Lal (supra) in Para 13 it has been observed by this Court as under : "Thus, from the above observations, it is clear that there is of-course no bar for filing revision directly to the High Court under Section 397 of the Code against the order of the Magistrate but when concurrent jurisdiction is given specially under such circumstances when both are superior Courts one to the Magistrate and another to the Sessions, then the propriety demands that elder superior Court in Hierarchy must be first approached. This is the customary common law as the first elders always respected." 6. In the present matter also there is concurrent jurisdiction to challenge the matter either before the District Judge or before this Court. But in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Natwar Lal's case (supra), I deem it proper to dismiss the revision petition with the liberty to the petitioners to approach first the District Judge, Sikar for redressal of their grievance. 7. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. But in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Natwar Lal's case (supra), I deem it proper to dismiss the revision petition with the liberty to the petitioners to approach first the District Judge, Sikar for redressal of their grievance. 7. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted liberty of one month from today to file fresh revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Sikar. The petitioners shall not be arrested during aforesaid period of one month from today. It is made clear that the time spent in pursuing remedy before this Court shall not come in their way for the purpose of limitation.Revision petition dismissed. *******