This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging dismissal of her complaint regarding forged fitness certificates was dismissed. The High Court held the order contained no illegality and noted the petition was barred as a second revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
The impugned orders dismissing the complaint and the revision petition were affirmed.
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. 573 / 2010
Smt.Naina Bhatiya w/o Shri Virendra Kumar Bhatiya, By Caste Bhatiya, resident of Bhadrakar Nagar. Anadara Road, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora
Mr. Rajesh Shah
Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
09/02/2017
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘revisional court’) in criminal revision petition No. 48/2009, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
The said revision petition was preferred by the petitioner
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-573/2010]
against the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in complaint No. 09/09, whereby the trial court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
of IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the trial court essentially with the allegations that the private respondent Hanif Khan, who was the Headmaster of the school where the petitioner was working as a Teacher along with Dr. Bhupesh Kumar and Dr. R.K. Pamecha hatched a conspiracy and prepared a forged Fitness Certificate of the petitioner on 01.04.2006. The petitioner has contended that she never contacted those Dr.s for the said Fitness Certificate, however, on 01.04.2006 the said accused persons issued the said forged Fitness Certificate of the petitioner at the instance of the Headmaster of the School.
The trial court after taking into consideration the averments of the complaint filed by the petitioner and the oral evidence produced by her in support of the protest petition under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner while holding that both the Dr’s have clearly stated that on 01.04.2006 the petitioner approached them and obtained the Fitness Certificate. The trial court was of the opinion that there was no reason to disbelieve the stand of the Dr’s as it cannot be believed that they would have issued a forged certificate at the instance of the Headmaster of the School.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-573/2010]
Being aggrieved with this the petitioner preferred a revision petition and the revisional court has dismissed the said revision petition. Hence this petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders and carefully scrutinizing the record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below because the petitioner has failed to produce evidence to prove the charge that the Dr’s have issued a forged fitness certificate of her at the instance of the Headmaster of the School.
Moreover, though the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 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..
Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Taruna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions for an inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to rest the cruelty or miscarriage of justice.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Naina Bhatiya w/o Shri Virendra Kumar Bhatiya
The State of Rajasthan
Hanif Khan
Dr. Bhupesh Kumar
Dr. R.K. Pamecha
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
