Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 579 (PAT)

Narender Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2009-04-10

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 20.8.2007 passed by learned Sessions, Judge, Purnea in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2007. The order has confirmed the earlier order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj by which he has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1000C of 2006 under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The details of the case need not be recorded because the basic facts are not disputed except that learned counsel for the petitioner now shows willingness to tender all the documents which were the basis for filing of the complaint case in question. 3. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 however takes a legal objection to the maintainability of the application. He submits that an application under Section 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of revision cannot be maintained since a second revision against the order of revision under Section 397(3) of the Code is a bar and in this regard he brings to the notice of the Court certain decisions of this Court as well as of the Hon ble Supreme Court; such as Rajan Kumar Machananda V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in 1990 (suppl) SCC 132, Krishnan and another V/s. Krishnaveni and another, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 and Special Bench of five Judges of this Court rendered an opinion in similar matter which is a case of Surendra Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, (1990) (2) PLJR 693. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however tries to meet the legal objection by placing reliance in the case of Krishnan and another V/s. Krishnaveni and another, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 referred to above. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having noted the legal position which has come to be settled in such matter in view of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court in the matter of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr PC, the basic position does not compel the Court in the circumstances to interfere with the revisional order. 6. 6. This application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner that if he tenders all the papers shown before the High Court with cogent explanation, the Court below may consider it as a mitigating circumstance as well as such other submissions which could be made in favour of the petitioner.