The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order dismissing a revision petition. It held the petition was maintainable only if exceptional circumstances existed, which were absent, and refused to comment on case merits.
Petition challenged impugned order dismissed; stay application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.621/2004
Mahesh Pareek Versus State of Rajasthan
DATE OF ORDER : 07/01/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. Rajesh Goswami, for petitioner Mr. Laxman Meena, P.P.
By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dt.16.04.2004 where challenge to framing of the charges has been made and therein revision petition in the hands of the petitioner was dismissed.
Only argument raised by counsel is that if at the relevant time when amount of Rs.4,94,843/- said to have been misappropriated, four cashiers were instrument for misappropriation and commission of offence. The petitioner was unnecessarily made accused and chargesheeted for offence under Section 409 and 409/120B IPC.
I have considered the submission made and find that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to challenge the order in revision is literally a second revision petition and is not otherwise maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 751. It is in the light of the fact that exceptional circumstances do not exist.
2
It is apart from the fact that issue and role of petitioner has been taken note of for framing charges and revisional court has discussed the matter after considering all the aspects. Any comment on merit may cause prejudice to either of the party, thus, I am not making any comment on merit of the case. However, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.
Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The criminal misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/621CMP2004.doc
Certificate:
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge a revisional court order in a criminal appeal is maintainable as a second revision petition.
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to maintain the criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors.Referred¶10
Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 751 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahesh Pareek
State of Rajasthan
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
