Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2085 (RAJ)

Prabhulal v. Kailash

2006-07-03

HARBANS LAL

body2006
Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC seeks recalling of the Judgment and order dated 21.04.2005 passed by Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Pathak in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 194/95. 2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts are that Smt. Kailash Non-petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 125, CrPC before the Court of learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Lakheri, District Bundi for maintenance. The same was allowed vide order dated 22.01.1994. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order dated 22.01.1994 which was decided by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bundi vide order dated 21.02.1995. The revision petition was partly allowed and the impugned order dated 22.01.1994 so far as it granted maintenance @ Rs. 300/-per month to Smt. Kailash was set-aside although, the order with regard to payment to maintenance allowing @ Rs. 200/-per month to their daughter Shakuntala was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order, Smt. Kailash filed S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 194/95 which was heard and decided by Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Pathak vide order dated 21.04.2005. The revision petition was allowed. The Judgment and order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 21.02.1995 passed in Cr. Revision Petition No. 12/94 was set-aside and the order passed by the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class dated 22.01.1994 passed in Cr. Case No. 308/92 (209/90) was restored. 3. The petitioner has inter-alia pleaded that the Honble High Court has passed the order dated 21.04.2005 without service of notice upon the petitioner. The petitioner received notice on 20.08.2005 for recovery of amount which has been passed by the trial Court. It was after the receipt of the said notice that he came to know that this Court has decided the revision petition against him on 21.04.2005. He has pleaded that he had neither signed nor received any notice of this Court. So, he could neither appear himself before the Court nor engage any Advocate to defend his case. The order impugned is, therefore, against the principles of natural justice which deserves to be recalled. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the non-petitioners. 5. A perusal of the file of S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 194/95 clearly reveals that the revision petition was admitted on 24.04.1995 and notices were issued to the non-petitioners. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the non-petitioners. 5. A perusal of the file of S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 194/95 clearly reveals that the revision petition was admitted on 24.04.1995 and notices were issued to the non-petitioners. The record was also sent for. The record was received on 13.06.1995 and the duly served notice of petitioner Prabhulal was received on 20.08.1996. The duly served notice is placed on the file wherein there is an endorsement that the notice was personally and duly served on petitioner Prabhulal. The endorsement bears his signatures in token of the receipt of notice. The petitioner has not disputed his signatures on the notice. Thus, having considered the materials on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not granted opportunity of being heard. It appears that he himself avoided or failed to appear before the High Court to contest the revision petition. It is further revealed that his notice was first served upon him through his brother Parmanand and the second notice was served upon him personally. Still, he did not choose to put in appearance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the matter has been decided without affording opportunity of hearing to him. No case for recall of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court is made out. It is well settled that criminal Court cannot ordinarily recall/review its order. No valid reason for recall or review of the order dated 21.04.2005 passed by a co-ordinate bench is made out. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusion on facts, it is not necessary to go into the controversy on merits. 7. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.