Rajasthan High Court
Balram S/O Ganga Singh By Caste Ahir vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21113) on 3 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:21113]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4403/2018
Balram S/o Ganga Singh By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Gopalpura,
Police Station Laxmangarh, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Motilal S/o Leelaram By Caste Jatav, R/o Village Toda
Police Station Laxmangarh, Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
03/05/2024
1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
on behalf of the accused petitioner challenging the order dated
07.06.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Laxmangarh, Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 43/2023 whereby the
learned revisional court dismissed the revision preferred by the
accused petitioner and upheld the order dated 22.04.2013 passed
by learned ACJM Laxmangarh, Alwar taking cognizance for the
offences 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST Act in case No.
244/2010 arising out of FIR No.103/2008, registered at Police
Station Laxmangarh, Alwar (Raj.).
2. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the
case.
3. A communication dated 03.05.2024 has been received from
learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Alwar wherein it has
[2024:RJ-JP:21113] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4403/2018]
been mentioned that after taking cognizance for offences under
Sections 323 and 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused petitioner
Balram by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, the
the case has been committed to the Special Court (SC/ST Act
Cases), Alwar. It has also been mentioned in the communication
that by order dated 09.05.2019, charges have also been framed
against the petitioner. The communication dated 03.05.2024 is
taken on record.
4. I have perused the impugned orders .
5. From perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that after
considering the entire case and material available on record,
criminal prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner.
Further, now charges have also been framed against the accused
petitioner before the learned Special Court and thus, the stage of
trial has also been changed.
6. Apart from above, it is worth mentioning that in the garb of
present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed
second revision petition which is also not maintainable. In the
case of Deepti @ Arati Rai vs Akhil Rai & Ors. vs. Akhil Rai &
Ors. reported in [1995] 0 SCC (Cri) 1020, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"4. .................The High Court also should have
taken care to verify the record before accepting the
concession made by the learned Government
Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the
aspect that second revision application, after
dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not
[2024:RJ-JP:21113] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4403/2018]
maintainable and that inherent power under Section
482 of the Code can not be utilised for exercising
powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As
we find that the order passed by the High Court is
not legal and just it will have to be set aside. We
accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court and
direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to
proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993."
In the case of Wajid Mirza vs. Mohammed Ali Ahmed, : 1982
CriLJ 590, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as
under:-
"23. This Court in Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, (1979) 1
AJLJ 1 : AIR 1979 Andra Pra 146 at p. 149 (FB) held :-
The language of sub-section (3) of Section 397
contains no ambiguity. If any person had already
chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to
the Sessions Court under subsection (1), the same
person cannot prefer a further application to the other
Court. To put it in other words, sub- sec.(1) and (3)
make it clear that a person aggrieved by any order or
proceeding can seek remedy by way of revision either
before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once, he
has availed himself of the remedy, he is precluded
from approaching the other forum. It is equally
manifest from the provisions of sub-section (3) that
this bar is limited to the same person who has already
chosen to go either to the High Court or to the
Sessions court seeking a remedy and that it does not
apply to the other parties or persons.‟
[2024:RJ-JP:21113] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4403/2018]
In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned orders, warranting interference, while
exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
Accordingly, the misc. petition is dismissed. Stay application
is also dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J
LALIT MOHAN /100
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
