JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Harday Prakash against the order dated Feb. 3, 2000 of judicial Magistrate No. 3, South Kota whereby, he was charged for the offences. 2. In brief the relevant facts of the case are that Sabita Sharma, who is said to be wife of the petitioner lodged a report on July 11, 1997 at Police Station Manila Thana, Kota regarding an incident which took place after March 25, 1996. The marriage between the parties took place on May 8, 1996. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has demanded cash of Rs. 50,000 and T.V., etc. from the complainant. After conclusion of the investigation the police submitted final report. The complainant moved a protest petition. After hearing arguments on the protest petition cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code after adopting the due process of law. The petitioner also filed application for discharge but the Trial Court after hearing him framed charge for the offences under Sections 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code. Against the said order the petitioner has moved this revision petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by the complainant are not corroborated from the evidence of the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the investigation. In this matter initially the police submitted final report and came to the conclusion that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner. The Magistrate took cognizance on a protest petition filed by the complainant vide order dated March 24, 2008. The Trial Court has not considered the legal position of law at the time of hearing arguments on charge. The Trial Court has also not considered the fact that the police already submitted a final report and there is no case made out against the petitioner, hence, the matter should be remanded back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not considered the documents filed by him at the stage of charge. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order framing charge is in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. In view of the arguments raised by the petitioner I am satisfied that the order dated Feb. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. In view of the arguments raised by the petitioner I am satisfied that the order dated Feb. 3, 2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate should be set aside, but at the same time the Trial Court is directed to rehear the matter within a period of 15 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order and after hearing both the parties if it founds (sic.) that the charges are to be framed then he will frame the charges and proceed for trial expeditiously. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send the record immediately. 6. The revision petition is disposed accordingly with the above direction -Stay. 7. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of.Revision petition disposed of. *******