ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Despite notice having been served, none appears for the respondent No. 1/de-facto complainant. 3. These appeals have been preferred by the present appellants, against the order of the High Court, which allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the present respondent No. 1, who is the de-facto complainant in FIR No. 19 of 2014, registered for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court allowed the aforesaid petition filed by respondent No. 1, thereby setting aside the order of the Sessions Court and restoring the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (for short ‘JMFC’). The Sessions Court, in revision, had set aside the order by which the JMFC had taken cognizance of the offence as against the appellants, on a protest petition filed by respondent No. 1. Such cognizance has been taken by the JMFC’s Court, after its earlier order committing the case for trial to the Sessions Court, had been passed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the subsequent proceedings, initiated by the JMFC on the protest petition, were sans jurisdiction as by a previous order, committal of the proceedings to the Sessions Court, had already been made. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference of this Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Ramakant and Others v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 15 SCC 429. 5. On a perusal of the judgment (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. At best, the respondent No. 1/complainant who has not chosen to appear before this Court, can invoke the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and not that of the JMFC. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside, giving liberty to the respondent No. 1 to work out the remedy in the manner known to law. 8. The appeals stand allowed accordingly. 9. Pending applications, if any, shall sand disposed of.