ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition was preferred on behalf of the petitioner before this Court on 2.11.2016 and the office has pointed out two defects. As the defects pointed out by the office are minor in nature, therefore, the same are waived. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor, the matter is finally heard and decided. 3. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No.27/2013 preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in FIR No.115/2010 of Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, arising out of FIR No.66/2010 of Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur, whereby the trial court has accepted the FR submitted by the police in the above-mentioned FIR and rejected the protest petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged an FIR No.66/2010 at Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur alleging that divorce proceedings between her and her husband Dhiraj Raj Singh are pending in the court, wherein, she has engaged the respondent No.2 as her counsel. It is alleged that in connection with those divorce proceedings, she often used to meet the respondent No.2 and during that period i.e. from 2005 to 2008, the respondent No.2 sexually assaulted her and thereafter forcibly got married with her in the year 2008. It is also alleged that the respondent No.2 had sexually assaulted the petitioner by administering intoxicating substances and also blackmailed her by preparing some objectionable video clippings. It is alleged that out of the said wedlock, one issue was also born and the respondent No.2 and his mother had locked the petitioner in their house from 2008 to 2010 and treated her with cruelty. 6. The aforesaid FIR was thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter a negative final report was submitted in the matter before the court concerned while concluding that the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the FIR are false. 7. 6. The aforesaid FIR was thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter a negative final report was submitted in the matter before the court concerned while concluding that the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the FIR are false. 7. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred a protest petition before the trial court and got recorded statements of herself and her father in support of the said protest petition. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the conclusions arrived at by the police and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, vide order dated 7.5.2013 has accepted the FR submitted by the police and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. 8. Being aggrieved with the order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition before the revisional court and the revisional court vide order dated 12.7.2016 has dismissed the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prima facie evidence of commission of rape and cruelty was available against the respondent No.2, however, the trial court without taking into consideration the said evidence and while relying on the defence evidence produced on behalf of the respondent No.2 has illegally accepted the FR submitted by the police vide order dated 7.5.2013. It is argued that the petitioner and her father in their statements recorded in support of the protest petition had clearly stated that the respondent No.2 by intoxicating the petitioner had forcibly committed rape upon her and thereafter forcibly solemnized marriage with her. It is contended that for the purpose of taking cognizance, the court has to take into consideration only the prima facie evidence and in the present case, prima facie evidence of commission of rape and cruelty was available against the respondent No.2, but the trial court has passed the impugned order only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and has illegally accepted the FR submitted by the police. It is also argued that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration the evidence available on record and has erred in confirming the order passed by the trial court. It is also argued that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration the evidence available on record and has erred in confirming the order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the trial court be directed to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offences alleged in the complaint filed by the petitioner. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have considered the material collected by the police during the course of investigation in detail and rightly passed the impugned orders because the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR were found to be false and there is no credible evidence available on record to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offences alleged in the complaint filed by the petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 12. The trial court has observed that during the course of investigation, the police has recorded statements of those persons, who attended the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.2. The trial court has found that all the witnesses, who attended the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have clearly stated that at the time of marriage, the petitioner was very happy and there was no sign that she is solemnizing marriage under pressure. The trial court has further taken into consideration the photographs of the marriage and observed that from those photographs, it is evident that the petitioner was very happy at the time of her marriage with the respondent No.2. The trial court has further taken into consideration the statements of the neighbours of the respondent No.2 recorded by the police during the course of investigation and observed that in all those statements, the neighbours have clearly stated that they did not see that the petitioner was made captive by the respondent No.2 or his mother and they have seen that the petitioner was free to move out of the house during her stay with the respondent No.2. The trial court has further observed that the petitioner has delivered a child in Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur, where she remained admitted for some days, however, there also, she did not make any complaint to anybody about her ill-treatment by the respondent No.2 and his mother. The trial court has further observed that the petitioner is educated and mature lady and it is not believable that she was sexually assaulted by the respondent No.2 from 2005 to 2008 but she did not make any complaint to anybody, even to her parents, in this regard up to 2010. The trial court has also observed that the allegation against the respondent No.2 that he had forcibly solemnized marriage with the petitioner is also not believable as after marriage, the petitioner never complained about the same to anybody till registration of the FIR in the year 2010. The trial court has further observed that the petitioner and her father in their statements recorded before the trial court in support of the protest petition had simply said that the police has not conducted fair investigation in the FIR lodged by the petitioner and no other evidence was produced by them before the trial court. 13. After going through the impugned order passed by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has taken into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioner and her witnesses in support of the protest petition and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation and thereafter accepted the FR submitted by the police. In the opinion of this Court, the order of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal in any manner as the trial court has considered the conclusions arrived at by the police and the material collected by it in detail and the same cannot be ignored simply because there is evidence of the complainant and her witnesses in support of the protest petition. 14. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the material collected by the police during the course of investigation and the evidence produced by the petitioner and her witnesses in support of the protest petition and thereafter has given a clear finding that the trial court has not committed any illegality in accepting the FR submitted by the police. 15. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the material collected by the police during the course of investigation and the evidence produced by the petitioner and her witnesses in support of the protest petition and thereafter has given a clear finding that the trial court has not committed any illegality in accepting the FR submitted by the police. 15. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed.