ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. The petitioner by way of filing the present miscellaneous petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It, is therefore most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to call the entire case and after perusing the same be pleased to: 1. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Shri Balakidas Vyas RJS(District Judge Cadre) and quash the order dated 05-05- 2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. 2. IN Addition Direct further investigation into the F.I.R. by an independent agency…..” 2. Succinctly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was engaged in the business of transport and used to provide freight services to respondent No.3 for the transportation of Marble Blocks from Rajsamand to Kishangarh, etc. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR No.182/2016 at Police Station Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of IPC alleging inter alia that as a routine market custom, in exchange of associating the trucks of the petitioner, respondent No.3 had taken 21 blank cheques from the petitioner as security, with a promise to return the same when the trucks would be detached. It has further been averred in the complaint that the relations between the petitioner and respondent No.3 started turning strained when the petitioner objected the constant overloading demands of the respondent No.3. In order to harass the petitioner, the respondent No.3 suddenly without any notice, detached all the trucks of the petitioner and ousted him from the dealing of the company which caused him huge financial losses. The plight of the petitioner was further worsened as six trucks belonging to the petitioner were declared as unattended and as a result, the same were confiscated by the concerned police authorities. Further, respondent No.2 in connivance with respondent No.3 presented one of the cheques, bearing No. 764838 for encashment which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. As a result of which, a criminal case was initiated by the respondent No.2 by way of filing a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act in the year 2009 which was later on withdrawn as not pressed. 3. As a result of which, a criminal case was initiated by the respondent No.2 by way of filing a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act in the year 2009 which was later on withdrawn as not pressed. 3. The Investigating Agency, after conducting a thorough investigation in the matter filed a negative final report before the competent criminal court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2017. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.05.2017, the petitioner moved a revision petition No. 75/2017 before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand and the revisional Court dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 20.06.2019 while recording a finding that no offence is made out against the respondents. Hence, this Misc. Petition. 5. The petitioner, present ‘in person’ before this court, contended that the impugned order of the learned revisional Court dated 20.06.2019 is not a reasoned order which is nothing but a gross miscarriage of justice. Right from the Investigating Agency to the revisional Court, the authorities have completely disregarded the harassment met by the petitioner at the hands of the respondents. 6. The petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would indicate that the respondents had dishonestly induced the petitioner to transport the marble blocks beyond the loading limits and later on, detached his trucks without any notice. 7. Further drawing attention of the court towards the impugned order of the revisional Court dated 20.06.2019, the petitioner submitted that though the revisional Court had noted that there were contradictions in the disclosure statements of the respondents accused recorded during the course of investigation, however, the learned revisional Court after consideration of the material available on record, proceeded to dismiss the claim of the petitioner. 8. Lastly, the petitioner, on the strength of the above mentioned facts and arguments, implored the court to accept the miscellaneous petition and while quashing the order of the revisional Court, direct further investigation in the matter. 9. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner is a mere exaggeration and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity whatsoever, and thus stated that the interference of this court in the present matter is not at all warranted. 10. 9. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner is a mere exaggeration and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity whatsoever, and thus stated that the interference of this court in the present matter is not at all warranted. 10. Learned counsel contended that the acts of the petitioner are manifest of the fact that time and again, the petitioner has taken recourse to litigation merely to harass the respondents. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the claims of the petitioner are based on concocted facts and the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional Court have recorded the finding that though it is a manifest allegation of the petitioner that the said cheques were issued by him as security however, no evidence whatsoever, has been presented by him to support the same. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the present petition has been moved after a delay of about 3 years and 2 months and no sufficient reasons have been supplied to satisfy the said inordinate delay by the petitioner and thus the present miscellaneous petition deserves rejection on this ground alone. 13. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by petitioner present in person and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents and has perused the material available on record of the case. 14. From the perusal of the record of the case it emerges that the petitioner was having business relations with respondent No.3. It is alleged that following the usual practice of the business, petitioner handed over 21 blank cheques to the respondent No.3 as security with a condition that as and when the vehicles attached to the respondent No.3, will be detached, the cheques would be returned to the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 has not admitted the factum of receiving blank cheques as security from the petitioner. 15. It is also not in dispute before this Court that on 30.10.2009 respondent No.2 filed a case (Case No.08/2010) under Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonor of cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- against the petitioner, however, on 15.09.2012, the said case was dismissed as not pressed. 15. It is also not in dispute before this Court that on 30.10.2009 respondent No.2 filed a case (Case No.08/2010) under Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonor of cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- against the petitioner, however, on 15.09.2012, the said case was dismissed as not pressed. It was only after about 3 years of withdrawal of the N.I. Act proceedings, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. stating that he had handed over 21 cheques against security to the respondent No.2 out of which 1 cheque was misused. On 06.06.2016, the criminal complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was sent for investigation by the C.J.M. Rajsamand after which FIR No.182/2016 was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 469, 471, 120-B of IPC. The police after making a thorough investigation into the matter filed a final report in the matter stating that a false case has been filed by the petitioner and no offence is made out. The protest petition filed by the petitioner against the final report of police dated 24.10.2016 came to be dismissed by the learned C.J.M. Court vide order dated 05.05.2017. 16. The petitioner thereafter, filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The criminal revision No.44/2019 (CIS No.75/2017) filed by the petitioner came to be decided by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide order dated 20.06.2019 whereby the petition was dismissed. 17. A perusal of the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the revisional Court would indicate that the petitioner could not show any evidence regarding his issuing or handing over blank cheques to the respondent No.2 as security. The revisional Court has discussed all the issues raised before it by the petitioner in detail. 18. It is settled law that scope of interference by the court exercising its revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases is very limited and the order passed by the learned trial Court is not open for interference, unless it is established before the revisional Court that the decision/order of learned trial Court is without jurisdiction or suffers from an incurable illegality. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that though the present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but virtually, it amounts to a second revision petition. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that though the present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but virtually, it amounts to a second revision petition. The interference by the High Court in the orders passed by revisional Courts in a routine manner would amount to circumvention of the provisions contained in Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. However, the High Courts do have suo motto powers under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of Cr.P.C. So, in the cases where the High Court, upon examination of records finds that there is a possibility of grave miscarriage of justice, or of abuse of the process of the Courts; or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with; or there is failure of justice; or the sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction; then it is the duty of the High Court to have it corrected to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni and Anr. Reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 pleased to hold that the revisional powers under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of the trial is that it shall be concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witnesses fade out. It has further been held that the recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witnesses or to win over the witnesses by promise of inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justice can be ensured only when trial is concluded expeditiously. 20. Having carefully scanned the material available on record including scanning the pleadings of the case and the judgment passed by the revisional Court and the Court of learned Magistrate, this Court does not find it necessary to examine the entire evidence available on record, threadbare while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 21. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, and keeping in view the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the second revision viz. the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 22. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, and keeping in view the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the second revision viz. the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 22. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of accordingly.