Chattisgarh High Court
Upendra Singh @ Kabra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 May, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CR.M.P. No. 251 of 2021
Upendra Singh @ Kabra, S/o. Ambika Prasad, aged about 45 years,
R/o. Belma, Police Station - Khijrasrai, District - Gaya (Bihar).
---- Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Station House Officer, Police
Station, Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
17/05/2021
Heard.
1. The Registry of this Court has pointed out the default regarding
maintainability of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that this petition is
maintainable in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Bombay
High Court in case of Krishna Venkatesh & Anr. Vs. Balbhim
Malvankar & Ors, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom. 1819
and the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab
Vs. Madan Lal, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 238. Reliance has also
been placed on the order passed by this Court dated 04.12.2020
in Cr.M.P. No. 990 of 2020 in Surendra Kumar Pandey Vs.
State of C.G. and order dated 12.04.2021 of this Court passed
in M.Cr.C. No.7838 of 2020 in Smt. Pooja Tandon Vs. State of
C.G..
3. State counsel opposes the petition and the submission made in
this respect. It is submitted that the present petition is not
maintainable. The judgment of Sessions Court against the
petitioner was challenged in appeal before this Court in Cr.A. No.
1624 of 2018, which has been disposed off by a judgment dated
30.04.2019 upholding the order of the trial Court with some
modification. The petitioner then moved petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Cr.M.P. No. 2749 of
2019, making a prayer for direction that sentences should be
ordered to run concurrently, that criminal miscellaneous petition
was disposed off on 15.01.2021 by the Division Bench of this
Court by dismissing the petition. Therefore, the present petition is
simply seeking review of the order of the Division Bench. Hence,
this petition is not maintainable.
4. Considered on the submissions. The case laws on which the
petitioner has placed reliance do not answer to the issue that has
been raised by the Registry, regarding the maintainability of the
present petition. As the petitioner has already moved similar
petition earlier, which has been disposed off by the Division
Bench of this Court, hence, this petition, which is brought before
the Single Bench is certainly not maintainable in any respect.
Hence, there is no valid reason to entertain this petition, which is
accordingly dismissed and disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Vacation Judge
Balram
