HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6718/2017 1. Ashok Meena S/o Shri Ram Niwas Meena 2. Naresh Meena S/o Ram Niwas Meena 3. Ramdev @ Ramdhan Meena S/o Shri Ram Niwas Meena All r/o Khilchipur Police Station Kotwali Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur. Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Tulsa Devi W/o Prahalad Bairwa, R/o Khilchipur, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur District Sawai Madhopur ----Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Verma for Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323, 452 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of taking cognizance is an order of final nature against which a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is maintainable but in the instant case without filing a revision petition, the instant petition (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6718/2017] under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been straightaway submitted before this court. 3. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a revision petition before the Revisional Court. In case, a revision petition is submitted by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today, it is expected from the Revisional Court to decide the said petition on its merits. 4. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that since the order of taking cognizance was passed nine years ago, if the charges have been framed against the petitioners and if the trial has proceeded then this order will not have any effect. The petitioners would be at liberty to assail the subsequent proceedings before the appropriate forum of law, if so advised. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/60