The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a witness. The court held the courts below were correct as the documents were not required to be proved by the summoned person. It also barred the petition as a second revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3231 / 2016
Daulat Ram S/o Basant Lal, Dhobi Gali Sadar Bazar Abu Road Distt. Sirohi
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
20/02/2017
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) whereby the criminal revision petition No.36/2014 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner against order dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for summoning one Niyamatulla Khan as witness has been rejected.
This petition was presented before this court on 25.10.2016 and the Office has pointed out two defects, however, the defects
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-3231/2016]
have not been removed till date.
After going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, I do not find any illegality in the said orders because the petitioner has prayed for summoning Niyamatulla Khan as witness for the purpose of confronting him with those documents which are admittedly not belongs to the said person.
The trial court as well as the revisional court have specifically observed that the documents Exhibits D-4 to D-6 i.e, notice issued by the advocate of the complainant and reply to the said notice given by the petitioner are not required to be proved or verified by the person to whom the petitioner wants to summoned as witness.
In such circumstances, no interference is call for in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
Moreover, though the petitioners have filed this misc. petition under 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition which is clearly barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above discussions, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Ashutosh baranwal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can interfere with a rejection of a Section 311 Cr.P.C. witness summons application.
Whether a petition seeking a second revision remedy is barred under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Daulat Ram
State of Rajasthan
Aadresh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
