JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Metropolitan Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur Metropolitan in Case No. 900/2011 whereby application of the present petitioner for rejecting the complaint under Section 138 has been rejected and revision has also been dismissed by the impugned order. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act) on which cognizance has been taken vide order dated 3.1.2011. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application on 21.7.2011 for rejecting the complaint which was rejected and revision against it has also been dismissed, hence this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that no case is made out for taking cognizance under Section 138 NI Act, hence the petition be allowed.Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the court below was not having any jurisdiction to recall his earlier order dated 3.1.2011 and order is in accordance with law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders impugned. 5. It is not in dispute that cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner vide order dated 3.1.2011 which was not assailed by way of revision. An application has been filed to reject the complaint which was rightly rejected by the court below stating that court has no jurisdiction to recall his earlier order of cognizance. This order was assailed in revision and revision was also rightly dismissed as there was no perversity in the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the trial Court. 6. When the present petitioner has not chosen to assail the order of cognizance it was not within the jurisdiction of court below to recall his earlier order of cognizance and applications have rightly been rejected. There is no reason to interfere in the orders impugned. The petitioner has wasted the time of three courts on ill-advise as his first application before the court below was not maintainable so the revision and this petition.The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******