ORDER : The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 30-10-2001 passed Second A.S.J. Jabalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 66/2001, wherein petitioner's challenge to order dated 8th February, 2000, passed by J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 49/2000, stood disallowed and rejected. 2. As per certified copy of order dated 30th October, 2001, passed by Second A.S.J. Jabalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 66/2001, petitioner submitted a written report on 13-11-1999, against the respondents/accused, to Collector, Jabalpur, S. P. Jabalpur and D.S.P. Jabalpur, wherein, it was alleged that on 12th November, 1999, at 8 a.m. the respondents/accused started ploughing the field of the petitioner and when an objection was raised by the grandson of the petitioner, respondents/accused not only hurled abuses, but gave him a beating with sticks. Then the petitioner so also his wife tried to save the grandson but these two were also given a beating by the respondents/accused. Earlier to aforesaid incident, the respondents/accused committed criminal house trespass in the house of the petitioner and hurled abuses to him in respect of which, Police Station Barela, submitted a police report against the respondents/accused for offences punishable under Section 448, 291, 506, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 15th February, 2000, the trial Court framed charges against respondents/accused for offences punishable under sections 447, 294, 506-B and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 91/2000, on this ground that an offence punishable under the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, which will hereinafter referred to as an Act, 1989, is also prima facie found to have been made out and hence the case was required to be committed. The learned A.S.J. Jabalpur disallowed and rejected the petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 91/2000 on 10-7-2000, on the ground that the petitioner is stated to be belonging of Jharia Caste, which does not fall within the categories of SC/ST. 4. Thereafter, on 18th July, 2000, this petitioner filed an application under Section 216 and 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking committal of the Criminal Case No. 49/2000, pending against these respondents/accused, on the ground that he belongs to Mehra caste, which falls in the category of Scheduled Caste. The learned trial Court disallowed and rejected the petitioner's application dated 18-7-2000 by order dated 8-2-2000. The learned trial Court disallowed and rejected the petitioner's application dated 18-7-2000 by order dated 8-2-2000. The petitioner challenged this order of rejection in Criminal Revision No. 66/2001, which also stood disallowed and rejected by Second A.S.J. Jabalpur, on 30-10-2001, on the grounds firstly - that the earlier Criminal Revision No. 91/2000, filed by this petitioner on this ground stood disallowed on 10-7-2000 therefore, on the same ground, the second Criminal Revision is not maintainable and secondly - that in an application submitted in revenue Court, the petitioner stated his caste to be Pawar, which falls in the category of O.B.C. and hence, on the basis of subsequent issuance of caste certificate by any Competent Authority, verifying the petitioner's caste to be Jharia, it cannot be decided, without taking the evidence, as to whether petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste or not. 4. Prabhas C. Sarkar has summarised in 7th Edition of his commentary on Code of Criminal Procedure at page 899, under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, referring the case of Preetam Singh, reported in AIR 1956 SC 415 , Bhoor Singh's case reported in AIR 1974 SC 1276 , Sundar Singh's case in AIR 1962 SC 211, N. R. Ghosh's case reported in AIR 1960 SC 239 , Manipur Administration's case reported in AIR 1965 SC 87 , Sheonandan's case reported in AIR 1964 SC 139, Mohar's case in AIR 1968 SC page 128, Ravinder's case reported in AIR 1975 SC 856 , and the case of Prakash reported in 81 CWN 261, that the rule of res judicata or issue estoppel requires that the previous judgment must be inter-parties, the fact in issue proved or not in earlier one, must also be identical with what is sought to be re-agitated and if so. This rule prevents relitigation of the issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the State and the accused. 5. This rule prevents relitigation of the issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the State and the accused. 5. Since this petitioner did not challenge the order dated 10th July, 2000, wherein this petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 91/2000, stood disallowed and rejected by A.S.J. Jabalpur, which was filed challenging the order dated 15-2-2000, passed by J.M.F.C., Jabalpur, the subsequent application filed by this petitioner on 18-7-2000 under Sections 216 and 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking the same relief on the grounds which were taken in Criminal Revision No. 91/2000, by this petitioner, was not maintainable on account of aforesaid legal position in respect of application of rule of issue estoppel, and hence the learned Second A.S.J. Jabalpur, is found to have committed no illegality in disallowing the petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 66/2001, on 30-10-2001, wherein, the order dated 18th July, 2000, passed by J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, was in challenge. 6. Thus, no interference in exercise of inherent powers is called for and hence, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing.