Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 313 (RAJ)

Mohini Devi v. State of Rajasthan

1996-03-25

N.L.TIBREWAL

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the prayer of the petitioner is that non petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 be directed to hand over the land to him and also to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest: 3. This petition has been filed on 3.5.1994. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 119/93 was decided by this Court on 21.4.1988, (sic) whereby the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone and in lieu of the reduction of imprisonment, sentence of fine was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 11,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- were ordered to be paid to the complainant if the fine was recovered. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel that the aforesaid order was obtained in revision by making a misrepresentation to the Court that the accused party will hand over land to the complainant side and the complainant side was demanding Rs. 30,000/- from the accused side. From the record it does not appear that any such compromise was filed before the Court and it was only an argument on behalf of the counsel for the accused that in case the parties settle the matter by way of compromise, then a lenient view may be taken. With regard to the compromise, the Court did not pass any order while deciding revision petition, nor there was any direction that the accused will hand over land to the complainant. 5. In view of the above, this petition is wholly misconceived. Otherwise also, the relief sought in this petition cannot be given Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code when the criminal case stood finally decided on 21.4.1988. The order passed in revision is final and the same cannot be altered or modified. Further, the petition has been filed after six years from the date of decision in the revision petition. 6. Judged from any angle, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The decisions in Sheosagar Singh v. Sitaram Kumhar & Anr., AIR 1952 Patna 48 and Mohammad Zaman & Ors. v. Manzur Hasan & Ors., AIR 1921 All. 146 have no application in the present matter. 8. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******