ORDER : 1. In this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge is to the order dated 20.09.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2021, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Visnagar, Dist: Mahesana, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application, refused to interfere with the order dated 19.03.2021 passed in Criminal Inquiry No.52/2019. The petitioner being a complainant, inter alia, praying that, the concerned police authority shall be directed to enquire the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court considering the application submitted to the police authority and facts and circumstances of the case, thought it fit to direct the police to enquire the matter under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and shall submit its report within 30 days. The police authority vide Exh:5 submitted detailed report observing that, no offence as alleged is made out. Pursuant to the report, the ld. Trial Court issued notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner vide Exh:8A filed objections against the report at Exh:5. The ld. trial Court after hearing the petitioner (complainant), did not accept the report at Exh:5 and disagreed with the objections filed by the petitioner and vide order dated 30.01.2021 observed that, the Court having no power to review or recall its earlier order and therefore, order of investigation by police under Section 156(3) of the Code cannot be passed. The petitioner herein again submitted an application at Exh:12 inter alia praying that, the matter required to be sent to police authority for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 19.03.2021, rejected the application observing that, the Court having no power or jurisdiction to review its order. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 passed in Criminal Inquiry No.52/2019, the petitioner has challenged the order by preferring Criminal Revision Application No. 8/2021. Ld. Additional Sessions Court, Visnagar, Dist. Mehsana vide order dated 20.09.2021, while upholding the order of the trial court, observed that, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law and has rightly held that, the Court having no power or jurisdiction to recall or review its order and only remedy lies in invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. Mehsana vide order dated 20.09.2021, while upholding the order of the trial court, observed that, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law and has rightly held that, the Court having no power or jurisdiction to recall or review its order and only remedy lies in invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge directed the trial Court to decide the issue afresh, by a reasoned order. 2. In the aforesaid facts, present petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 3. This Court has heard Mr. H.D. Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State. 4. Mr. Panchal, counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, assailing the impugned orders passed by the Courts below submitted that the impugned orders are ex facie unjust and against the mandatory directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari for registration of FIR. In this context, it was submitted that, the complaint is filed under Sections 354A of IPC and therefore, in view of the amended provisions of Cr.P.C, trial Court ought to have passed an order directing the police authority to enquire the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code. Hence, the Courts below have committed serious error of law, while passing the impugned orders. It was further submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are based on non-application of mind, non-appreciation of facts and contentions and having been passed based on conjectures and surmises and not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta, supporting the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below, submitted that, the Courts below have not committed any error of law and therefore, case is not made out warranting interference invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code vests with this Court. 6. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the counsels for the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned orders. 7. 6. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the counsels for the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned orders. 7. Before proceed further, it is relevant to refer Sections 190, 200, 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:- Section 190 – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence – (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. Section 200 – Examination of complainant – A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses (a) if a public servant acting or- purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. Section 202 – Postponement of issue of process- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,-- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.” 8. An analysis of the aforesaid provisions show that, when a private complaint is presented before the Magistrate, he can, after examining the complainant and his/her witnesses on oath, take cognizance of an offence. Section 202 (1) empowers the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by police officer or by such other person which he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not their exists sufficient grounds for proceedings. 9. In the facts of the present case, upon presentation of the complaint and after following the procedure as laid down under Section 190 of the Code, the learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process and chose to enquire into the case by himself directing the police to submit detail report. 9. In the facts of the present case, upon presentation of the complaint and after following the procedure as laid down under Section 190 of the Code, the learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process and chose to enquire into the case by himself directing the police to submit detail report. Upon submission of a report, objections were invited from the complainant and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the Court concerned did not have accepted the police report and simultaneously disagree with the objections submitted by the complainant. The learned Trial Court while dealing with the objections also dealt with the issue raised by the complainant observing that the Court cannot review or recall its order and therefore, rejected the contentions to send the matter to the police authority to be investigated under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The first order dated 30.01.2021 is not challenged by the petitioner. Instead of challenging the impugned order, the complainant filed an application at Exh:12 inter alia praying that, the matter shall have to be sent to the police authority to be inquired by them under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Adalat Prasad (Supra), held that, the Court having no any jurisdiction or power to recall or review the earlier order. 10. In this background facts, issue falls for consideration of this Court whether the Courts below have committed any error of law while passing the impugned orders, which require interference. 11. The petitioner – complainant seeking direction that the trial Court in exercising its jurisdiction, to pass an order of investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction, vests under Section 200, 202 of the Cr.P.C, the trial Court thought it fit not to send the matter to police authority as prayed for and postponed the issue of process against the accused and chose to inquire into case himself and directed the police authority to submit its report, so that, Court may take appropriate decision whether case is made out for issuing process or not. The initial order passed by the trial Court as well as subsequent order dated 30.01.2021 have not been challenged by the petitioner complainant. In the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. The initial order passed by the trial Court as well as subsequent order dated 30.01.2021 have not been challenged by the petitioner complainant. In the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, ( 2004 (7) Scale 137 ), the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of taking cognizance of an offence, held that, the subordinate criminal courts having no inherent power to review or recall its order. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, did not consider to review its order, by which the Court has chosen to enquire the matter by himself. Despite the clarification made by the trial Court, the petitioner herein again filed an application at Exh:12 inter alia praying the similar prayer which had been dealt with by the trial Court, holding that, in view of the judgment of the Adalat Prasad (supra), Court cannot recall its order. 12. In light of the settled legal proposition of law and considering the facts and circumstance of the present case, there is no any legislative mandate on the part of the Court to send the complaint to be inquired by the police authority as provided under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, the Sessions Judge while rejecting the revision application directed to decide the issue afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It may be noted that, the scope and power of the Court while dealing with the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not co-extensive with the appellate power. It is settled law that, jurisdiction should be sparingly with great care, caution, circumspection and only to prevent great miscarriage of justice. In the facts of present case, the petitioner failed to point out the errors that have been committed by the Courts below, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, no case is made out, so as to warrant interference of this Court. Therefore, present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Ld. Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visnagar, Dist. Mehsana, shall decide Criminal Inquiry No. 52/2019 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. D.S. is permitted.