JUDGMENT
M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. On a negative report of the police Dated 5.5.1991, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A IPC in the present case and summoned the petitioners as accused thereof vide order dated 31.10.1991. The petitioner put in appearance in the court on 27.4.1993. The learned Magistrate, without complying and without following the requirements of Sections 207 and 238 Cr. P.C. framed the charges for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners. The charges so framed by the learned Magistrate were quashed by this Court on petitioner’s petition bearing S.B. Misc. Petition No. 674/93, on 10.2.1995. This court sent the matter back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to first deliver the copies of documents on the record of the police report to the petitioners and after hearing them for charge to pass appropriate orders. The learned Magistrate appears to have complied with such directions of this Court and after hearing the parties framed the charge under Section 498A IPC against all the petitioners vide his impugned order dated 9.7.1996. It further appears that the petitioners had also moved an application under Section 177 Cr. P.C. on 3.8.1995 challenging the very jurisdiction of the trial court at Bundi to entertain and hear this petition. By his impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected and disposed of such application of the petitioners. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Gr. P.C. has been preferred whereby the initial order of taking cognizance dated 31.10.1991 as also the order dated 9.7.96 framing the charges against the petitioners have been challenged.
3. At the very out-set, the court pointed out that since an order framing charge against the accused carries in it the element of finality in as much as that if such an order is cancelled by the higher court it would put an end to the litigation between the parties, therefore, such on order was revisable under Section 397 Cr. P.C. and looking to the higherarchy of the Court in the context of the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C. with the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners should have not by-passed the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge in the matter.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that by this petition, the petitioners have also challenged the very order of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 498A IPC dated 31.10.1991 by the learned Magistrate and in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur v. Darsan Singh and Ors. 1996 RCC, 592, the petition is maintainable.
5. It is true that an order of taking cognizance has been held to be an interlocatary order which falls within the purview of Section 482 Cr. P.C. and not of under Section 397 Cr. P.C. But in the instant case, it is evident that the justification and validity of that order had, may be impliedly fall for consideration of this Court in petitioners’ revision petition No. 674/93. In view of that order of this Court, it cannot be re-agitated that the Court had not considered the merits of the present case from the angle of abuse of process of the Court or miscarriage of justice, Therefore, by simply showing the present petition as one challenging the order dated 31.10.1991, this petition cannot be treated as one under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Such an effort on the part of the petitioners is hereby disapproved.
6. The order dated 9.7.1996 framing charges for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners is an order which could be revised in exercise of their powers under Section 397 Cr. P.C. either by this Court or by the learned Sessions Judge concerned. As stated earlier, there appears no good reasons for the petitioners to have by-passed the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge which in the hierarchy of the Court and also in the interest of the parties is required to he maintained. The practice of approaching this Court after by-passing jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge in the matters of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. P.C. is not to be appreciated and encouraged. In that view of the matter, I would like to dismiss this petition with the observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may approach the learned Sessions by way of a petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. and raise all the pleas before him as have been raised by them before this Court in this petition.
7. Mr. Govind Lal Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal reported in 1991(1) RLR 709 and Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(2) RLR 795 had urged that the Court at Bundi could not have jurisdiction to try the offence, if any, alleged to have been committed in this case, but also that the evidence on the record of the case was not at all sufficient to frame charge for offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners or any of them. The petitioners would be entitled to raise such a plea before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge shall consider such an objection with particular reference to the two cases cited above.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.