Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kishan Lal against the order dated 23.7.2013 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri in complaint No.26/2012, whereby the trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-petitioner. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one D.B. PIL Petition No.8221/2011 was filed in which Roshan Lal, Sushila Devi, Sardari, Dhapli Devi Badami Devi and Kailash were the parties. On account of illegal mining of Bajri, the PIL petition was filed. In this Public Interest Litigation, the Court passed stay on 5.7.2011 in favour of the petitioners therein. Thereafter on 24.9.2011 the Court recorded the order of displeasure in respect of conduct of accused Joga Ram. Inspite of he order passed by the High Court Collector hand in glove with Abu Bakar, the then SDO, Khetri and other police officials, started region of terror on the petitioner and other family members and threatening was given that thy are required to withdraw the public interest litigation. Thereafter contempt petition No.546 of 2012 was filed on 5.5.2012 by Roshan Lal for compliance of the order dated 5.7.2011. The notices were issued by the Division Bench on 17.5.2012. On 1.6.2012 notice was received by the Collector, who was contemner respondent No.4. He himself received the notice and informed Abu Bakar, who was contemner respondent No.5 that contempt petition has been filed. The notice has also been served on Abu Bakar on 6.6.2012. With malafide intention and oblique motive/ill will, the plan was made along with the Superintendent of Police and other police officials to throw out the petitioner and other family members. On 8.6.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. Abu Bakar SDO Khetri in connivance with Collector made attack at the house of petitioner and others for the purpose of humiliating them before the public. At about 7.30 pm. again attack was made by SDO and four SHOs along with other police officials with the connivance of Collector, they were abusive in respect of SC/ST and beating was given. Dhapli Devi received serious injury on neck. She remained admitted as Indoor patient and further more in view of humiliating in public, abuse was given to ladies and they were humiliated and one girl Komal, aged about 12 years was kidnapped for the purpose of selling and thereafter she was let it out. Dhapli Devi received serious injury on neck. She remained admitted as Indoor patient and further more in view of humiliating in public, abuse was given to ladies and they were humiliated and one girl Komal, aged about 12 years was kidnapped for the purpose of selling and thereafter she was let it out. On 13.5.2012 the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, against the then Collector Joga Ram, the then SDO Abu Bakar, along with four SHO of Khetri and other persons. On 14.6.2012 the Court below passed order in the complaint directing the complainant and his witnesses to remain present before the Court on 16.6.2012. On 16.6.2012 and 30.6.2012 statements of complainant and his material witnesses including victim were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments the Court below passed order on 30.6.2012 and sent the matter under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to SP Jhunjhunu. Thereafter the matter was transferred to Additional SP Jhunjhunu for investigation. The statements of complainant and his witnesses including victim were recorded by Additional SP under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Additional SP also prepared the site plan on 24.7.2012. The petitioner submitted following authorities in this case: (1) 2012(1) Cr. Court Cases 492 (SC) Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar vs. CBI Delhi = 2012(1) RLW 584 (SC) (2) (2010) 7 SCC 578 Shivji Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwari and others (3) (1997) 2 SCC 397 Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar (4) 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 414 = 2010(2) RLW 1626 (SC) Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of NCT Delhi and others R. Prasanna and others (5) AIR 1990 SC 494 Mrs. Dhan Laxmi vs. R. Prasanna and others (6) (2012) 8 SCC 795 Vilas Padndurang and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (7) 2012(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 262 Mohd. Ayub vs. State of Raj. and ors. (8) 2011(3) RCRD 550 (Raj.) Mohd. Ayub vs. State of Raj. and others (9) (2005) 6 SCC 161 Kanwar Pal Singh vs. State of Raj. and others (10) (2004) 4 SCC 371 Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra (11) 2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 348 Chauthmal Kumawat vs. State of Raj. 3. The court below vide order dated 23.7.2013 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant petitioner. 4. Mr. S.R. Surana, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. and others (10) (2004) 4 SCC 371 Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra (11) 2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 348 Chauthmal Kumawat vs. State of Raj. 3. The court below vide order dated 23.7.2013 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant petitioner. 4. Mr. S.R. Surana, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Bhargava has argued that the Court below has committed material illegality while not considering the statements of complainant and other ladies recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. While making enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the site plan prepared clearly shows that there is no encroachment in any way and the location is showing the position of the house of the victim. Sheeshram and Jai ram, who are the independent eye-witnesses in this case but their statements have been completely ignored and entire complaint has been dismissed observing that there are contradictions in their statements. Dhapli, who is 72 years old, received injury as per her statement. This has been ignored along with medical evidence in this case. Dhapli was admitted to the SMS Hospital from 9.6.2012 till 17.6.2012 on account of injury on the survical region. It has also been stated that during the course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. a site plan was prepared by Additional S.P. on 24.7.2012 which has also been completely ignored. The case was at the stage of taking cognizance. At the state of framing of a charge, probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. The rulings cited by the complainant has not been considered while rejecting the complaint. It was prayed that the rejection of complaint deserves to be quashed. The manner adopted by the trial Court in this matter is resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. 5. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that the Court below after considering all the material available on record and did not find it to e a fit case for taking cognizance against the non-petitioners, who are Collector, SDM and SHOs, responsible officers, who are maintaining law and order. The complaint was found false and hence the Court below right rejected the same. The order of the Judicial Magistrate suffers from no infirmities so as to call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The complaint was found false and hence the Court below right rejected the same. The order of the Judicial Magistrate suffers from no infirmities so as to call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the judicial Magistrate. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel, (2013) 3 SCC 697 the petitioner, Gambhirsinh R. Dekare, at the relevant point of time was serving as Taluka Mamlatdar and an Executive Magistrate in Vadodara Taluka in the Sate of Gujarat. In Gujarati daily newspaper Sandesh in Vadodara edition, news item was published that the petitioner "is in love and keeping illicit relations with the wife of a doctor at Ajwa Road". According, he filed a compliant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking into consideration the allegation made in the petition of complaint and the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 500, 501, 502, 506, 507 and 114 of the Penal code, 1860 and issued process against the accused. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and issuing process, filed an application before the High Court seeking quashing of the complainant. The High Court allowed the application. The High Court came to the conclusion that prosecution of accused would amount to miscarriage of justice and, accordingly, quashed the complaint and the process issued against him. The complainant preferred special leave petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court considered the scheme and scope of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and found that it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. The Apex Court considered the judgment in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 and observed as follows: "15. The Apex Court considered the scheme and scope of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and found that it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. The Apex Court considered the judgment in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 and observed as follows: "15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provisions of Sections 200 and 2020, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of the Code. 16. Therefore, in our opinion the observation of this Court in K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala ( (1992) 1 SCC 217 ) that for recalling an erroneous order of issuance of process, no specific provision of law is required, would run counter to the scheme of the Code which has not provided for review and prohibits interference at interlocutory stages. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court in Mathew case (supra) that no specific provision is required for recalling an erroneous order, amounting to one without jurisdiction, does not lay down the correct law." In Nupur Talwar vs. CBI (2012) 2 SCC 188 = 2012(1) RLW 584 (SC), the subject-matter of challenge before the Apex Court was an order dated 18.3.2011 of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court on a petition under Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad in Special Case No.1 of 2011 (Rajesh Talwar vs. Unknown under Section 302 IPC, PS SCB CBI, Delhi) refused to interfere with the Magistrate's order of taking cognizance. By the said order dated 9.2.2011, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC against the appellant and one Dr. Rajesh Talwar. By the said order dated 9.2.2011, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC against the appellant and one Dr. Rajesh Talwar. The Apex Court relying on a three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in India Carat (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (1989) 2 SCC 132 in which it was observed as under: "16. The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigating has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) direct the issue of process to the accused." In Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary, (2010) 7 SCC 578 , it was considered by the Apex Court that whether examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint is sine qua non for taking cognizance by a Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session in an appeal filed against the order dated 18.4.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1778 of 2007 whereby he remitted the case of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran with the direction to make further inquiry and pass appropriate order in the light of the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). n that case Ajay Kumar Singh is said to have been killed by Respondents 1 to 4 on 1.1.1997/2.1.1997. The appellant lodged the first information report on the same day at Police Station Isuapur. After conducting investigation, the police submitted final form on 3.9.1998 with the finding that they had no clue about the culprits. n that case Ajay Kumar Singh is said to have been killed by Respondents 1 to 4 on 1.1.1997/2.1.1997. The appellant lodged the first information report on the same day at Police Station Isuapur. After conducting investigation, the police submitted final form on 3.9.1998 with the finding that they had no clue about the culprits. Thereupon, the appellant filed a protest petition accusing the police of not conducting the investigation properly due to political pressure and prayed that the accused persons be summoned and punished. By an order dated 3.9.2002, the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form submitted by the police but, at the same time, directed that the protest petition be registered as a separate complaint. He also directed the complainant to produce his witnesses. The appellant examined himself and two out of the four witnesses cited in the protest petition-cum-complaint but gave up the remaining two witnesses because he though that they had been won over by the accused. After considering the statements of the appellant and the two witnesses, Chief Judicial magistrate, Saran passed an order dated 13.12.2006 whereby he took cognizance against Respondents 1 to 4 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and directed issue of non-bailable warrants against them. Before the Apex Court, the issue was considered by a two-Judge Bench. M.B. Shah, J. referred to Sections 200 and 202, the judgment of Apex Court in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Pepsu ( AIR 1959 SC 843 ) and in Rosy vs. State of Kerala (2000) 2 SCC 230 and held that examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose names are disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the direction given by the Magistrate in terms of the proviso to Section 202(2) is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance an disuse of process against the persons named as accused in the complaint and the High Court committed serious error in directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct further inquiry and pass fresh order in the light of the proviso to Section 202(2). 8. In view of the above relevant rulings of the Apex court I have to examine the relevant evidence and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 8. In view of the above relevant rulings of the Apex court I have to examine the relevant evidence and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. The trial Court in the order dated 23.7.2013 observed as under: ^^izkFkZuk i= esa ntZ vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa ifjoknh fd'kuyky dk dFku gS fd vkB rkjh[k 'kqØokj ds fnu dh ckr gSA jks'kuyky eh.kk mlds lkys dk yM+dk gSA jks'kuyky o mlds ifjokj ds dbZ yksxksa us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k dkVyh unh esa ls ctjh fudkyus dks ysdj eqdnek dj j[kk gSA unh esa jks'kuyky ds [ksr iM+rs gS mlds [ksrksa ls Hkh ctjh fudkyrs Fks blfy;s eqdnek fd;k gSA fnukad 8-6-12 dks lqcg 10-30 cts ds yxHkx og llqjky ukSjaxiqjk x;k FkkA fnu esa 1-30 cts [ksrM+h ,lMh,e dh xkMh vkbZ ftlesa ,Mh,e vcqczd vkSj 6-7 onhZ/kkjh iqfyl okys vk;s vkSj dgus yxs fd rqe fe.Mdys pksj gks vkSj rqeus gekjs fo:) VhvkbZ yxk j[kh gS og okfil yksA jkefuokl] t;jke] 'kh'kjke us /kedk;kA mUgksaus muds lkeus Hkh dgk fd rqe fe.Mdys pksj gks vkSj eqdnek gVkvksa ugha rks xkao ls ckgj fudky nsaxsA ogka ekWtwn vkSjrksa /kkiyhnsoh o eerknsoh vkfn ds lkFk /kDdk eqDdh dhA 'kke dks 7 - 8 cts ykbZV xbZ gqbZ FkhA 5 - 7 iqfyl dh xkM+h vkbZ ftlesa iqfyl okys vk;s Fks vkSj ,lMh,e vcqczd Hkh Fks tks ?kj esa ?kql x;s vkSj vi'kCn dgus yxs fd lkys fe.Mdys pksjksa budks ckgj fudkyksA fQj vcqczd us /kkiyhnsoh ds FkIiM+ ekjh ftl ij iqfyl okyksa M.Ms ls /kkiyh ds xnZu ij ekjhA /kkiyhnsoh dks tehu ij fxjkdj ykrksa ls ekjus yxsA lq'khyknsoh o ljnkjhnsoh] eerk] larks"k ds lkFk Hkh ekjihV dhA mlus dgk fd ,sls D;ksa dj jgs rks rks vcqcze o iqfyl oykksa u mlds Hkh FkIiM ls ekjihV fd;kA vcqczd us FkIiM+ ls ekjihV dhA fQj ;s yksx ogka ekWtwn dksey iq=h lqHkk"k mez 12 lky dks xkM+h esa Mkydj ys x;sA <wa<us ij jksrh gqbZ ?kj vkrh ckn esa feyhA /kkiyhnsoh ds ekjihV ls xnZu o 'kjhj ij pksVsa vkbZ FkhA lq'khyknsoh ds dksguh o ?kqVus ekjihV dh otg ls fNy jgs FksA eerk] ljnkjk o mlds ekjihVh ls tkfgjk pksVsa ugha vkbZ FkhA ekjihV jkefuokl] t;jke] 'kh'kjke us ns[kh FkhA ftu dFkuksa dh iqf"V vU; lk{kh ghjkdqekjh] larks"k] lq'khyk] 'kh'kjke] /kkiyh] eerk] chuknsoh o dksey us djrs gq, foi{khx.k }kjk uktk;t fxjksg dk xBu dj muds ?kj esa ?kqldj ekjihV djus] efgykvksa dh 'khy Hkax djus] tkfrlwpd xkfy;ka nsus] pkanh dk dM+k tcju ysus] 12 o"khZ; dksey dks fdMusi djus dk dFku fd;k gSA** 9. In relation to the above allegations the trial Court observed in the order dated 23.7.2013 as under: ^^bl laca/k esa ifjoknh i{k dk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha gS fd tc ,d lkFk 7-8 ,oa mlls vf/kd iqfyl okys MaMksa vkfn ls ekjihV djsa rks D;ksadj muds dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugha vkbZ] u gh vkgrx.k ds pksVksa ckcr dksbZ pksV izfrosnu i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA i=koyh ls miyC/k tkap fjiksVZ ls layXu ?kVukLFky dh QksVksa esa iqfyl dkaLVscy dk mifLFkr gksuk nf'kZr gksrk gSA tgka rd /kkiyhnsoh dh pksVksa dk iz'u gS\ /kkiyhnsoh dh mez yxHkx 72 o"kZ gksuk fnukad 9-6-12 fMLpktZ fVdV esa n'kkz;k gS ftlesa lokbZdy LikbZu pksV ,oa nnZ dh f'kdk;r gksuk crk;h gSA mä /kkiyhnsoh dh tkap fjiksVZ ds laca/k esa mä fMLpktZ fVdV esa ejht dh xnZu esa iqjkus ncko okyk ÝsDpj gksuk crk;k gS tks ÝsDPj ?kVuk ds laca/k esa gh vk;k gks] izekf.kr ugha gSA pwafd leLr lk{kh foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk mä /kkiyhnsoh dh xnZu ij MaMs] VkpZ vkfn ls ekjihV djuk crkrs gSa tcfd Lo;a /kkiyhnsoh }kjk foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk mlds da/ks] 'ks"k }kjk mlds flj] ihB vkfn ij ekjihV djuk O;ä fd;k x;k gSA mldh xnZu ij MaMs vkfn ls ekjihV dh xbZ gks] dk dksbZ dFku mä lk{kh;k us ugha fd;kA blds vfrfjä mlds 'kjhj ij vkSj dksbZ pksV vkbZ gks] ckcr dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij ugha gS] u gh dksbZ bZykt dh iphZ vkfn nlrkost ifjoknh us is'k fd;s gSaA ?kVuk ds laca/k esa xokgksa ds c;kuksa esa rkfRod fojks/kkHkkl gksus] i{kdkjksa ds e/; eqdnesackth o jaft'k gksus] ykfB;ksa vkfn ls ekjihV djus ij Hkh dksbZ tkfgjk pksV vkgrx.k dks ugha vkus vkfn dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, foi{khx.k ds fo:) izdj.k esa vfxze dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds dksbZ ;qfä;qä vk/kkj i=koyh ls izdV ugha gksrs gSaA Qyr% i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls izFke n`"V;k vijk/k cuuk u ik;s tkus ls ;g ifjokn vohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS tks QSly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nrj gksA** 10. I have gone through the statements enclosed with the revision petition and the order passed by the trial Court dated 23.7.2013. There are discrepancies in the statemens of the witnesses. There is no material available on record to connect the non-petitioners with the allegations leveled against them, who are responsible officers/officials of the State. I have gone through the statements enclosed with the revision petition and the order passed by the trial Court dated 23.7.2013. There are discrepancies in the statemens of the witnesses. There is no material available on record to connect the non-petitioners with the allegations leveled against them, who are responsible officers/officials of the State. The complainant has failed to produce any injury report or material against the non-petitioners involving them with the crime as alleged in the complaint. I am in agreement with the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the complaint and consigning to record by his order dated 23.7.2013 with a reasoned order. In my view by passing the above order there is no miscarriage of justice in the impugned order. Thus the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 11. For the above discussions and as per the above rulings, the revision petition being devoid of merit stands rejected.