Rajasthan High Court
Abdul Rashid @ Babu Khan S/O Bhure Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:22575) on 13 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:22575]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2945/2019
Abdul Rashid @ Babu Khan S/o Bhure Khan, Aged About 67
Years, R/o Ward No.6, Mohalla Doongarpada, Todabheem,
District Karauli.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Allanoor S/o Lallu Khan, R/o Ward No.6, Mohalla
Doongarpada, Todabheem, District Karauli, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
13/05/2024
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2019
passed by Additional Session Judge No.1, Hindaun City (learned
revisional court) in Criminal Revision No.166/2018, whereby, the
learned revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Todabheem, District Karauli
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to drop the
proceedings arising out of FIR No.201/2004 and FR No.151/2004
PS Todabheem.
The petitioner challenged the order dated 02.1.2007 by way
of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.935/2007 before this
Court. Vide order dated 13.10.2011, the aforesaid misc. petition
[2024:RJ-JP:22575] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2945/2019]
was disposed of. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to
raise all the grounds, available in the petition, before the learned
trial court at appropriate stage. After passing of the order dated
13.10.2011, the petitioner filed an application to drop the
proceedings before the learned trial court and vide order dated
20.01.2016, the same was dismissed. The said order was also
assailed by the petitioner before the learned Revisional Court in
Criminal Revision No.166/2018 but vide order dated 16.03.2019,
the same was dismissed by learned Revisional Court.
Vide order dated 02.01.2007, the learned trial court directed
for sending the matter to FSL for comparison of thumb impression
of Batuli available on the suit filed on 23.09.1994 with the thumb
impression, appearing on the disputed sale agreement. The
petitioner, moved the application for dropping of the proceedings
on the ground that since Batil has expired on 11.02.2008, her
signatures cannot be compared at FSL. After hearing learned
counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perusing
the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion
that both the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court
have rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner. Both the
courts below were perfectly justified in holding that though Batuli,
has expired on 11.02.2008 but her thumb impression available on
record can be compared with the thumb impression appearing on
the disputed sale agreement.
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 not maintainable. In the case of
Deepti @ Arati Rai vs Akhil Rai & Ors. vs. Akhil Rai & Ors. reported
[2024:RJ-JP:22575] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2945/2019]
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
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
[2024:RJ-JP:22575] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2945/2019]
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.‟
In view of above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in
the orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned
revisional court.
Accordingly, the misc. petition is dismissed. Stay application
is also dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /51
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
