ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 12.04.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Churu (for short, 'learned revisional Court') dismissing revision petition of the petitioner against order of cognizance passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner attributing offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. Learned trial Court, while resorting to sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. sent the matter for investigation. After investigation, Police submitted negative final report in the matter and thereupon, respondent-complainant lodged a protest petition under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The protest petition was considered by the learned trial Court and pursuant thereto statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. Later on, learned trial Court, upon consideration of the matter in entirety, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the learned revisional Court and the learned revisional Court, by the order impugned, declined to interfere with the order of cognizance. 3. Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the learned revisional Court has not at all cared to examine the order passed by the learned trial Court in right perspective. Learned counsel submits that the revisional jurisdiction, conferred on a Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., presupposes that the Court is required to examine correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial Court but in the instant case, no such, endeavour is made by the learned revisional Court. Lastly learned counsel has urged that the order impugned is absolutely vague, cryptic and a non-speaking order which cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have stoutly defended the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5. Having considered the matter threadbare, in my opinion, as per the Scheme of Cr.P.C., revisional jurisdiction of the criminal Court is of wide amplitude and Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is expected to dwell deep into the matter to examine correctness, legality and propriety of the order under challenge. 5. Having considered the matter threadbare, in my opinion, as per the Scheme of Cr.P.C., revisional jurisdiction of the criminal Court is of wide amplitude and Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is expected to dwell deep into the matter to examine correctness, legality and propriety of the order under challenge. It is also desirable that the revisional Court, while affirming the order, is required to record reasons and revision petition cannot be dismissed in slip shod manner by a vague & cryptic order. 6. In totality, I am at loss to say that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court is bereft of any reasons and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Learned revisional Court has committed manifest error of law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and consequently, the order impugned merits annulment. 7. Resultantly, petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the learned revisional Court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned revisional Court for deciding revision petition of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law. Record of the case be remitted back forthwith.