JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19.7.2007 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar in Cr. Revision No. 14/2004, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate in Cr. Case No. 47/2004 has been set aside.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant petitioner lodged a complaint in the Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar on 8.3.2003 with wherein he averred that he is the resident of village Rajpura and presently residing at Laxmangarh and having the dealing of money transaction with one Ram Lal S/o Shri Hardeva. On 12.2.2003 he has conducted a meeting before the known persons of village and conveyed to the respondent No. 2 that he may clear his accounts, but in that meeting, Ram Lal has not come there and in order to call him, one Jagdish and Kana Ram went there then he made a declaration that he having muscle power and he will clear all the accounts by using the muscle power and also given threatening that if Birju Singh has some goat then he can clear his account with him. On 7.3.2003 at about 8.30 P.M. while he coming from the market and reached near the turning of his street, one person bearing leather Jacket came in a Jeep and stopped him and told him that there is some dues of shoes on him and started quarreling with him and put him into the Jeep by showing pistol and declared that he has been kidnapped. Some other unknown persons were also following him by another Jeep, the complainant averred that he can recognise them. It has been stated that these persons taken the signatures of the complainant on three stamps by Reynold Pan and after that they took him at the residence of Santra who was residing at village Gudi. The complainant was forced to make a call at his home and to say that he is fine and will reach at home after 3 hours and put him in another room. Thereafter, at 1.30 A.M. (night) Ram Lal, Ram Deva, Ratna Ram, Mana Ram came there by Jeep and asked to pay Rs. 80,000/- then they will release the complainant Birju Singh. Thereafter, at 1.30 A.M. (night) Ram Lal, Ram Deva, Ratna Ram, Mana Ram came there by Jeep and asked to pay Rs. 80,000/- then they will release the complainant Birju Singh. They forced to write a note in Bahi which was also signed by complainant and Ram Deva Ram, Ratna Ram and Ram Lal. After that they send him Ajit Garh with other two persons and I reached at my home at about 5 A.M. The complainant averred that he can recognise them.3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered a case F.I.R. No. 43/2003 and after investigation, a challan was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, who framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 365, 342, 385, 120-B I.P.C.4. Feeling aggrieved by the investigation conducted by the investigating agency, the complainant has filed an application under Section 173 sub-section (2) sub-clause (A) and Section 156 sub-section (3) before the learned trial Court.5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the application with a direction that the matter should be remitted to the investigation agency with direction to the Superintendent of Police Sikar to conduct the investigation within a period of one month by an officer of Dy. S.P. Rank.6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2004, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar who vide his order dated 19.7.2007 allowed the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the trial Court.7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.7.2007, the petitioner has filed a Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1748/2007 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 7.2.2008 the Misc. Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file revision petition. Hence, the present revision petition.8. In this revision petition, Mr. Peush Nag and Shri Girish Khadelwal Advocates appearing on behalf of petitioner have contended that the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sikar is against the provisions of Section 173(2)(8), hence, the impugned order dated 19.7.2007 is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside.9. They further contended that trial Court has power to direct the police to re-investigate the matter if it is reaches to the conclusion that police has left out certain material facts without investigation. They further contended that trial Court has power to direct the police to re-investigate the matter if it is reaches to the conclusion that police has left out certain material facts without investigation. They contended that the revisional Court has also not considered the provisions of Section 397 where the power of the revisional Court is very limited while exercising the revisional jurisdiction and the revisional Court has failed to point out any illegality or otherwise any propriety or legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the trial Court and the same should be upheld.10. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Dhandh, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and pointed out that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the revisional Court. He contended that the revisional Court has rightly passed its order after considering the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further contended that the trial Court cannot issue the direction to the Investigating Agency under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at the stage of charge. In support of his arguments, Mr. Anoop Dhandh has relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1991) SCC 361 in which Honble Apex : "A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Secs. 156(3), 1'3(8), 190, 200 & 204 - Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of police report and after appearance of the accused, cannot order of his own further investigation in the case - Order of the Magistrate directing further investigation set aside with a direction to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or discharge the accused on the basis of the material already on the record - If the order be of discharge, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible. B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers can be exercised by the High Courts only - Subordinate criminal Courts have no such power." 11. I have heard counsels for both the parties and also gone through the order of the revisional Court which is under challenge. I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by Addl. I have heard counsels for both the parties and also gone through the order of the revisional Court which is under challenge. I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar.12. In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed and the judgment dated 19.7.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar is hereby confirmed.This Cr. Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******