Dismissed

Rajendra Prasad @ Raju v. Dwarka Prasad Mishra

Rajasthan HC3 May 2019CRLMP/1058/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking to vacate a stay order. The Court held that the second revision was barred under Cr.P.C. and inherent powers were not invoked. A stay application was disposed of, and costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; stay application disposed; costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on petitioner.

Rajendra Prasad @ Raju Vs Dwarka Prasad Mishra — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1058/2018

¶3

Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Bharat Bhushan Gupta B/c Khandelwal, R/o Malakhera, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dwarka Prasad Mishra S/o Balmukund, R/o Village Malakhera District Alwar Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Jain

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

03/05/2019

¶12

Matter comes up on an application for vacation of the exparte stay order.

¶13

Heard on the main petition.

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 09.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar Rajasthan, whereby Revision Petition field by the petitioner was rejected and order dated 06.07.2017 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Malakhera District Alwar, Rajasthan was confirmed.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that complainant has not impleaded the firm as an accused in this case, hence, the Court cannot proceed with the complaint.

¶16

Counsel for the complainant has opposed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. His contention is that petitioner

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-1058/2018]

¶19

has already availed the remedy of Revision, admittedly cheque bears signature of the petitioner and in the complaint itself it was mentioned that the cheque was given by the petitioner and it was not given by the firm and it is for that reason the firm was not made a party.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Since petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision and second revision is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. This is not a case where the inherent powers need to be invoked. Cheque bears the signature of the petitioner. Cheque is of year 2014. The trial has been delayed for five years, hence, this Court deems it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only). The cost amount be deposited with the Trial Court which shall be paid to the complainant.

¶22

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶23

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶24

Amit Kumar /19

Rajendra Prasad @ Raju v. Dwarka Prasad Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad @ Raju v. Dwarka Prasad Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Sahay Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hitendra Kumar Choudhary Vs Rampratap and Ors.

Vikram Singh S/O Late Girdhari Snigh B/C Daroga Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Mahi International Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Govind Johari Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Benoy Mathur Vs State of Raj and Anr.