JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 has been filed against the order dated 27.8.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajakhera, Distt. Dholpur in Cr. Case No. 54/2009 whereby negative final report has been accepted and protest petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and by the impugned order, revision against the same has also been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that present petitioner filed a complaint that respondents No. 2 to 5 entered into their house and stolen jewellery articles. On this complaint, FIR No. 128/2009 has been registered and after investigation final report has been filed. The present petitioner has protested the final report. After enquiry, his protest petition has also been dismissed. He assailed the order by way of revision which was also dismissed, hence this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that all the witnesses has supported the story of the complainant in spite of this complaint has been dismissed. The court below has entered into a roaring enquiry which was not the domain of the court below, hence the orders deserve to be quashed and protest petition be accepted and cognizance be taken against the respondents. 4. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned orders. 6. The complaint in this case has been filed by the present petitioner on 14.5.2009 for the incident of 2.5.2009 that the respondents have took jewellery from his house and also Rs. 5,000/-. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2 is the wife of the present petitioner and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. Present petitioner was not the eye-witness of the incident, his sister-in-law Mamta has been shown to be eye-witness. The court below has considered the fact that Mamta has not testified the fact as narrated in the complaint. In the complaint it has been stated that from the room of the present petitioner jewellery has been stolen whereas Mamta has stated that from her room jewellery has been stolen, no jewellery articles have been recovered and site plan also shows that lock of the Almirah was not broken and the Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that person may say lie but not the circumstances. 7. 7. The contention in the complaint taken on its face value speaks that a false, fabricated and concocted story has been designed just to take the revenge from the respondents with whom present petitioner is having inimical relations. Complaint has been filed for the offence under Section 379, 406 IPC which are contrary to each other and cannot go hand in hand which ipso facto is sufficient to raise a presumption that the statement in the complaint are false and fabricated. 8. The court below has considered the material on record and passed the order which has been assailed by way of revision, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.The petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******