JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.5.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Revision No. 136 of 1998. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saran at Chapra has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner preferred against the order dated 1.4.1998 passed by Sri S.K. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Enquiry Case No. 83 of 1998/C-47 of 1997. By the said order the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint petition filed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was filed by the petitioner. 2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner filed a complaint alleging therein that forcibly opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 who were police officials took the equipments and machinery from the cinema hall of the petitioner. At the time of enquiry as well as hearing on cognizance on behalf of the petitioner- complainant some information was brought to the notice of learned Magistrate that the police had instituted a case vide Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 33 of 1997 against the complainant/petitioner and a seizure list was also produced. Considering the fact that articles were seized by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in course of investigation of the case in Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 33 of 1997 the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint filed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after conducting enquiry. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of the complaint petition the petitioner filed a revision petition vide Cr. Revision No. 136 of 1998, which stood rejected on 12.5.2000. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saran at Chapra after examining the materials available on the record, rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved with both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 5. Mr. M.N. Parbat learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that order of rejection of complaint petition was erroneous and contrary to the record as well as contrary to the settled principle of law. 4. Aggrieved with both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 5. Mr. M.N. Parbat learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that order of rejection of complaint petition was erroneous and contrary to the record as well as contrary to the settled principle of law. It was submitted that though the learned Magistrate had noticed that the complaint was supported by the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as enquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate, to the reasons best known to him, has rejected the complaint petition. It was further submitted that at the time of hearing of cognizance there was no occasion to hear the accused persons. To the reasons best known to the learned Magistrate, the accused was also heard at the time of cognizance. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash the order rejecting the complaint petition and remit the matter to the concerned court for further enquiry. 6. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that once revision petition was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner was not entitled to file the present petition in the garb of second revision petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that no such second revision can be entertained. It was submitted that with a view to circumvent the provision, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition. 7. I have also heard Mr. Birendra Nath Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 8. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. It is true that at the time of hearing on cognizance, the learned Magistrate was not required to hear the accused person, but the fact remains that in a police case i.e. Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 33 of 1997 a search was conducted in the picture hall premises of the petitioner and thereafter seizure was made. It is true that at the time of hearing on cognizance, the learned Magistrate was not required to hear the accused person, but the fact remains that in a police case i.e. Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 33 of 1997 a search was conducted in the picture hall premises of the petitioner and thereafter seizure was made. Moreover, the complaint itself was rejected in the year 1998 and at this belated stage it would not be proper for this Court to direct the court below for further enquiry. Moreover, second revision was also not maintainable. 9. In the circumstances, as indicated above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected.