Allowed

M/S Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal for Agarwal Adhesive

Rajasthan HC28 Sept 2022CRLR/1551/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a criminal revision filed by a victim against an acquittal decree. The petitioners argue the lower court wrongly entertained the revision since the victim could have preferred an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. citing Joseph Stephen, the court holds the High Court correctly ruled that the remedy of appeal was the proper course, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was allowed; the judgment of the below courts setting aside the revision was upheld.

M/S Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1551/2022

¶3

M/s Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises, Through Partner Shri Sanjay Maheshwari Address Of Office 115, Karni Vihar, Near Bsnl Road, No. 15, V.k.i Area, Jaipur (Raj)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Krishna Kumar Agarwal For Agarwal Adhesive, Address Of Office Plot No. 75, White Tower First Floor, Deep Vihar, Near Near Talent School, Reen Town, Beenar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

28/09/2022

¶12

;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls vihyh; U;k;ky;] vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] la[;k&7] t;iqj egkuxj izFke ds vkns'k fnukad 25-07-2022] ftlds }kjk ;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy varxZr /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk {ks=kf/kdkfjrk ds vHkko esa vLohdkj dj fujLr dh xbZ gS] ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶13

iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk dh i`"BHkwfe ls lEcfU/kr rF; bl izdkj gSa fd ;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky;] vij eq[; egkuxj eftLVªsV ,oa fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k ¼,u vkbZ ,DV dslst½ la[;k&8] t;iqj egkuxj t;iqj esa ,d ifjokn bl vk'k; dk is'k fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ifjoknh ls tfj, fcy la[;k 129] 198] 221 izkIr eky ds Hkqxrku isVs 452177@&:i;s ds Hkqxrku gsrq ,d pSd fn;k o vk'oklu fn;k fd cSad esa izsf"kr djus ij mldk Hkqxrku vo'; izkIr gks tk,xkA ifjoknh }kjk pSd dks cSad esa is'k fd;k rks og pSd vi;kZIr /kujkf'k dh fVIi.kh ds lkFk vuknfjr gks x;k ftlds

¶14

(2 of 6)

¶15

[CRLR-1551/2022]

¶16

i'pkr fof/kd uksfVl fn;k tks izkIr gksus ds i'pkr Hkh mldk >wBk tokc fnyok fn;k ,oa jkf'k ugha ykSVkbZ&&vkfnA mDr ifjokn ij vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk 138 ,uvkbZ ,DV dk izlaKku fy;k tkdj izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k x;k o vfHk;qDr dks ryc fd;k x;kA fnukad 14-02-2022 dks ifjoknh ;k muds vf/koDrk dh vuqifLFkfr esa ifjokn vne gkftjh vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt djrs gq, vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 256 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr dj fn;kA bl vkns'k ds fo:) ls'ku U;k;ky; esa vihy is'k djus ij vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ifjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy varxZr /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk vius vkns'k fnukad 25-07-2022 }kjk {ks=kf/kdkfjrk ds vHkko esa vLohdkj dj fujLr dh xbZA nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds mDr vkns'kksa dks ;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; esa tfj;s iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk pqukSrh nsdj bUgsa vikLr djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

¶17

vkyksP; vkns'k fnukafdr 14-02-2022 ds fo:) izLrqr iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk dh iks"k.kh;rk ij ;kph@ifjoknh dks lquk x;kA

¶18

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk rdZ gS fd ifjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ifjokn varxZr /kkjk 138 ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fnukad 14-02-2022 ls ifjoknh ,oa mlds vf/koDrk dh vuqifLFkfr esa fujLr fd;k tkdj vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;g vkns'k fof/k fo:) ,oa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ds vk/kkj ij mDr vkns'k dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, ifjoknh us ls'ku U;k;ky; esa vihy izLrqr dh Fkh] tks fnukad 25-07-2022 ds vkns'k ls bl vk/kkj ij fujLr dj nh xbZ fd fnukad 14-02-2022 ds fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds fo:) /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr vihy ls'ku U;k;ky; esa vuqer ugha gS rFkk /kkjk 378¼4½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr mPp U;k;ky; esa gh fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk izLrqr dj vihy dh tk ldrh gSA

¶19

mudk rdZ gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k loZFkk fof/kfo:) gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 14-02-2022] ftlds }kjk mldk ifjokn fujLr djds vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ds fo:) /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds ^ijUrqd^ ds v/khu ls'ku U;k;ky; esa vihy iks"k.kh; FkhA ls'ku U;k;ky; us mls iks"k.kh; ugha ekudj vihy dks fujLr fd;k gS] tks fof/k fo:) gSA

¶20

(3 of 6)

¶21

[CRLR-1551/2022]

¶22

vr% iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa mudh vksj ls fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p; izLrqr fd;k&

¶23

Joseph Stephen Vs.Santhanasamy In The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 98-93/2022

¶24

mDr fofu'p; ds iSjk la[;k&10 esa fuEukuqlkj er vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS%&

¶25

Now so far as issue no.2, namely, in a case where no appeal is brought though appeal lies under the Code, whether revision application still to be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed, the answer lies in sub-section (4) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. itself. Sub-

¶26

section (4) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

¶27

“(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.” 10.1 It cannot be disputed that now after the amendment in Section 372 Cr.P.C. after 2009 and insertion of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., a victim has a statutory right of appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶28

Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal. Even the same would be in the interest of the victim himself/herself as while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court. 10.2 As observed by this Court in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra), so far as the victim is concerned, the victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like sub- section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. The right provided to the

¶29

(4 of 6)

¶30

[CRLR-1551/2022]

¶31

victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. Therefore, so far as issue no.2 is concerned, namely, in a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. Issue no.2 is therefore answered accordingly.

¶32

geus mDr rdksZa ij euu fd;k vkSj i=koyh ,oa izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk llEeku v/;;u fd;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ,oa vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;@vkns'kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶33

;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls fo}ku ls'ku U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vfHk;qDr ds nks"keqfDr lEcU/kh fu.kZ; fnukad 14-02-+2022 ds fo:) vihy izLrqr dh gS] mDr vkns'k vihy djus ;ksX; gh FkkA /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds ijarqd esa ihfM+r ¼Victim½ dks vihy izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gSA /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa fuEu izko/kku gSa%& No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.—

¶34

No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code by any other law for the time being in force. 1 [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

¶35

blh izdkj ls nks"keqfDr ds lEcU/k esa vihy ds lEcU/k esa /kkjk 378¼4½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr fuEu izko/kku gSa%&

¶36

If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an

¶37

(5 of 6) [CRLR-1551/2022]

¶38

application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

¶39

mDr izko/kkuksa dks i<+us ls Li"V gS fd tgka nks"keqfDr ds fo:) ifjoknh dh vksj ls vihy izLrqr dh tkrh gS rks ogka /kkjk 378¼4½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr gh ,slh vihy iks"k.kh; gS vkSj bl gsrq ifjoknh dks mPp U;k;ky; esa fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk izLrqr djuh gksxhA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 2013 (2) SC 17 esa ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ifjokn ij lafLFkr izdj.k esa ;fn fopkj.k U;k;ky; nks"keqfDr dk fu.kZ; ikfjr djrk gS rks ,sls fu.kZ; ds fo:) ifjoknh /kkjk 378¼4½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr gh fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk ds vk/kkj ij vuqefr izkIr dj vihy izLrqr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj ifjokn ij lafLFkr izdj.k] ftlesa nks"keqfDr dk fu.kZ; ikfjr gqvk gS] ogka /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kku ifjoknh ds lEcU/k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gS a A

¶40

orZeku ekeys esa Hkh fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa vkijkf/kd izdj.k ifjokn ij gh lafLFkr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa fnukad 14-02-2022 ds vkns'k }kjk vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ,sls vkns'k ds fo:) /kkjk 378¼4½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr mPp U;k;ky; esa fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk gh izLrqr djuh gksxhA

¶41

/kkjk 138 ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr ifjoknh n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 2¼MCY;w½¼,½ ds varxZr Victim dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS vkSj /kkjk 372 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kku mlds lEcU/k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gS a ] tSlk fd fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa esa fu.khZr fd;k x;k gSA

¶42

1- Smt.P. Vijay Laxmi Vs. Smt. S.P. Shrwan & Anr. In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

¶43

Criminal Appeal No. 16742/2016 Order dated 27-10-2017,

¶44

2- Kushal Kawaduji Singajude Vs. Ramnarayan Durgaprasad In the High Court of Bombay Criminal Application No. 201/2018

¶45

3- Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Vs. The State of Karnatka In The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 1281-82/2018

¶46

(6 of 6)

¶47

[CRLR-1551/2022]

¶48

,slh fLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd fo}ku ls'ku U;k;ky; us /kkjk 138 ,uvkbZ,DV ds ifjokn ij lafLFkr ekeys esa vfHk;qDr dh nks"keqfDr ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr vihy dks ls'ku U;k;ky; esa iks"k.kh; ugha ekudj fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd =qfV ugha dh gSA vr% mDr vkns'k ds fo:) u rks ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk bl U;k;ky; esa iks"k.kh; gS vkSj u gh Lohdkjs tkus ;ksX; gSA tSlk fd Åij of.kZr fd;k gS fd ifjoknh ds ikl /kkjk 378¼4½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr gh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 14-02-2022 ds fo:) mPp U;k;ky; esa fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk izLrqr dj vihy dk mipkj miyC/k FkkA ifjoknh }kjk mDr vkns'k ds fo:) igys ls'ku U;k;ky; esa vihy izLrqr dh xbZ tks fd mi;qZDrkuqlkj ls'ku U;k;ky; us vkns'k fnukad 25-07-2022 ls mfpr vkns'k ikfjr dj fujLr dj nhA mlds fo:) ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ gS tks fd Lohdkjs tkus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj blh dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA

¶49

bl izØe ij ;kph@ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g izkFkZuk dh fd og lnHkkfod :i ls lgh fof/kd mipkj gsrq dk;Zokgh ugha dj lds vkSj og lnHkkfod :i ls xyr eap (forum) esa viuk ekeyk vfHk;ksftr (prosecute) dj jgs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa mUgas bl U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 14-02-2022 ds fo:) fo'ks"k vihy vuqefr ;kfpdk gsrq izLrqr djus dh Lora=rk iznku dh tk,A

¶50

bl dze esa bruk gh dguk i;kZIr gS fd fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr ;kph@ifjoknh ,slh ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ds fy, Lora= gSA lkFk gh ;kph@ifjoknh mDr leLr dk;Zokfg;ksa esa tks vof/k O;rhr gqbZ gS] mlds lEcU/k esa NwV izkIr djus ds fy, vko';d izkFkZuk&i= Hkh izLrqr djus ds fy, Lora= gSA

¶51

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶52

AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL /89

M/S Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal for Agarwal Adhesive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal for Agarwal Adhesive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashoka Gears through Managing Director Gaurav Khanna Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashoka Gears Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajeet S/O Jawali Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahadev Singh Son of Shri Devi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushpa Saini Wife of Shri Ramesh Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Naga S/O Trilok Singh Vs State of Rajasthan