JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.8.2008 whereby the revisional Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court for rehearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contention of the present petitioners is that. the learned revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the order that the trial Court should act in a particular manner. According to Section 398, Cr.P.C., it was not within the jurisdiction of the revisional Court to give a particular direction. The revisional Court could have ordered for further enquiry into any complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Bare perusal of the order of revisional Court goes to show that the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction when direction has been issue to the learned Court to act in furtherance of the finding given by the revisional Court. In other words, direction has been given for taking cognizance against the respondent No. 2. 6. The learned counsel for both the parties have relied on the judgment reported in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Supp. RCC 1996 22) wherein it has been specifically held that : "Section 398, Cr.P.C.-The learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to direct the learned trial Court to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 5 and 6 of the C.M.R. Act, but only remand the matter for taking further inquiry in accordance with law." 7. Hence looking at the above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the revisional Court is modified and quashed the observations, which are- " fd mijksDr Findings ds vuq:i bl ekeysa esa dk;Zokgh ds fy;s vxzlj gksus ds fy;s leqfpr vkns'k ikfjr djsaA " Court to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The parties are directed appear before the trial Court on 21.10.2011.Revision petition partly allowed. *******