JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.4.1999 passed by Sessions judge, Nawadah in Cr. Revision No.118 of 1998. By the said order, the learned sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.8.1997 passed by Shri a. K. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, nawadah in Complaint Case No. C346 of 1997/tr. No.198 of 1999. By order dated 16.8.1997, the learned Judicial Magistrate, after examining the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation, complaint petition and evidence of four witnesses, who were examined in support of the complainant, has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 379, 5-4 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the date of occurrence, while the complainant was returning after performing pooja in a temple, on way, he was intercepted by the accused persons and he was assaulted by the accused persons and in the said occurrence, the accused persons forcibly took Rs.5000/- from his pocket as well as his wrist watch costing of rs.1,000/- was also taken away by the accused persons. 3. The petitioner in the present case has taken a plea that no such occurrence has taken place and the petitioners were falsely implicated by the complainant. It has also been asserted that the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the complainant, had given inconsistent evidence and on this ground, they have prayed for quashing of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as mentioned above. 4. I have examined the materials available on record as well as order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do no find any defect in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Moreover, the petitioners aggrieved with the order of cognizance had filed criminal revision vide cr. Revision No.118 of 1998. The said criminal revision was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by assigning a detailed reason by its order dated 12.4.1999. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioners, in the garb of filing a petition under Sec.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, has virtually filed a second revision, which is barred under Sec.397 (3) of the Cr. P. C. 5. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioners, in the garb of filing a petition under Sec.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, has virtually filed a second revision, which is barred under Sec.397 (3) of the Cr. P. C. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as indicated above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 6. By order dated 17.8.1999, the present petition was admitted only in respect of petitioner no.1 and petition in respect of petitioner nos.2 to 5 was rejected. While admitting the case, by its order dated 17.8.1999, this Court had directed that further proceeding against petitioner no.1 in the court below, during the pendency of this application, in complaint Case No.346 (c) of 1997 (Tr. No.298 of 1999), shall remain stayed. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.