[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Kishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7499) on 10 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:7499]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2676/2024
Jai Kishan S/o Sh. Prahlad Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot
No. 44, Tilak Nagar Ii, Bhadwasiya Road, Dist Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramprakash S/o Sh. Raghunath Mal, R/o Ghewarchand
Raghunath Mal, Achalnath Ji Mandir Ke Pass, Lakhara
Bazar, Jodhpur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Radha Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Sukesh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
10/02/2026
1. The petitioner-complainant, having instituted proceedings
under the Negotiable Instruments Act, invoked the
jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.3,
Jodhpur by preferring an application under Section 143A of
the Act, praying for interim compensation to the extent of
20% of the cheque amount. The learned Magistrate, upon a
comprehensive appraisal of the factual matrix and the rival
submissions, declined the said relief by a reasoned order
dated 01.02.2023 in Case NCV No.6393/2020. The petitioner
carried the matter in revision before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision
No.06/2023 & NCV No.105/2023; however, the revisional
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 06:05:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7499] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2676/2024]
court, by order dated 24.11.2023, affirmed the
determination of the trial court, thereby resulting in
concurrent judicial findings against the petitioner.
2. When the matter has now been brought before this Court, it
assumes immediate procedural significance that the present
petition, though couched under a nomenclature distinct from
that of a criminal revision, in essence seeks reconsideration
of the very order which has already been subjected to
revisional scrutiny. A careful and analytical reading of the
pleadings, grounds, and the relief sought leaves no room for
doubt that the substance of the challenge remains
unchanged. The transformation in procedural attire cannot
alter the juridical character of the proceedings.
3. The procedural history unequivocally demonstrates that the
petitioner, having suffered an adverse order from the
Magistrate, availed the statutory remedy of revision before
the Sessions Court and, upon failure therein, has attempted
to re-open the identical issue before this Court. Such a
course, irrespective of the terminology employed, partakes
of the character of a second revision.
4. It is a settled tenet of procedural law that courts must look
beyond form to substance. The true nature of a proceeding
is to be determined by the essence of the relief claimed and
not by the nomenclatural device adopted by the litigant.
Judicial scrutiny cannot be thwarted by semantic innovation.
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 06:05:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7499] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2676/2024]
Where the legislative scheme imposes an embargo, the
same cannot be diluted by procedural ingenuity.
5. Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts a
clear prohibition against entertaining a second revision at
the behest of the same party. The object underlying this
statutory restraint is to ensure finality in adjudication, to
maintain procedural discipline, and to prevent multiplicity of
challenges that would otherwise impede the expeditious
administration of criminal justice.
6. This Court is not unmindful of the amplitude of its inherent
and supervisory jurisdiction, which may be invoked to rectify
patent illegality, jurisdictional transgression, or manifest
miscarriage of justice. However, such extraordinary powers
are not to be employed as a substitute for revisional
remedies already exhausted. Their exercise is reserved for
rare and compelling situations where palpable injustice
stares at the face of the record.
7. In the case at hand, no such exceptional or extraordinary
circumstance has been demonstrated. The petitioner has not
been able to point out any perversity, arbitrariness, material
irregularity, or jurisdictional infirmity in the concurrent
orders passed by the courts below.
8. On the merits of the controversy, this Court finds that the
learned Magistrate exercised the discretion conferred under
Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a
judicious and balanced manner. The provision confers a
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 06:05:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7499] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2676/2024]
discretionary authority and does not mandate automatic
award of interim compensation. The exercise of such
discretion is contingent upon the factual substratum of each
case and the equities emerging therefrom.
9. The order of the trial court discloses a reasoned analysis of
the relevant considerations and reflects conscious application
of mind. The revisional court, upon independent
examination, concurred with the reasoning and found no
justification for interference. The concurrent findings thus
rest upon sound legal footing and cannot be characterized as
capricious or perverse.
10. In view of the statutory bar against a second revision,
coupled with the absence of any manifest illegality or
miscarriage of justice, this Court finds no lawful basis to
unsettle the determinations rendered by the courts below.
11. Consequently, the present petition, being procedurally
untenable and substantively devoid of merit, stands
dismissed. All consequential directions shall follow in
accordance with law.
(FARJAND ALI),J
50-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 06:05:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
