Maheshwari Machineries Pvt.Ltd vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:14332)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8994 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Maheshwari Machineries Pvt.Ltd vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:14332) on 18 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:14332]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2708/2012

Maheshwari Machineries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Bhuvnesh
Maheshwari S/o Shri Prabhu Maheshwari, College Road, Bus
Stand Bypass Corner, Udaipur.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Mateshwari Machinery through Proprietor Ramesh Singh
Deora S/o Hari Singh Deora, resident of Jhadol, District Udaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Chaturbhuj
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
                                  Mr. Ravindra
                                  Mr. Deepak Menaria


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/03/2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through

the niceties of the matter.

2. Bereft of elaborate details succinctly stated the fact of the

case would be that the petitioner happens to be complainant of a

case under Negotiable Instrument Act, in which, after a full

fledged trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused

respondent No.2. He preferred an appeal challenging the

conviction. Vide the judgment dated 01.02.2012, the learned

Court of Appeal remanded the matter back to the learned trial

Court to adjudicate the issue whether absence of requisite proof of

the capacity of the complaint would render the complaint

maintainable or not. When the matter was received again, the

complainant moved an application under Section 91 and 311 of

[2025:RJ-JD:14332] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2708/2012]

the Cr.P.C. for taking on record some documents and calling a

witness for the complainant. The said application was dismissed. A

revision preferred against that was also dismissed. Hence, this

petition.

3. At the outset, it would be apposite to state that there is

concurrency in observation of two Courts below in which unless

gross illegality is noticed, the upper Court should not make

intervention. Sub-clause (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. further puts

a bar on reviewing an order again at the request of the same

party. In view of the above, the present misc. petition is nothing

but a second revision petition in disguise of a different

nomenclature.

4. Viewing the case from another angle, it would come out that

the remand order confines hearing of the parties on the question

of maintainability of complaint only and the learned Court of

appeal did not give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce

further evidence in the trial. Since the order of learned Court of

appeal was never made to challenge by the complainant and

which has attained finality, therefore, no correction or further

interpretation or elastic interpretation can be made at a

subsequent stage by an upper Court. There is no force in the

instant misc. petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is dismissed as having

no force.

6. Stay petition is disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 1-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)