Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 690 (RAJ)

Ansar Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

2010-03-26

M.N.BHANDARI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 15.3.2010 whereby the warrant of arrest against the petitioner has been issued pursuant to non-compliance of the order under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code 2. It is stated that petitioner had filed an application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code for recalling of the order passed on application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code Without deciding the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code, the order impugned herein has been passed. The petitioner had otherwise taken divorce, thus order of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was not even maintainable, however, ignoring all these aspects, the Court below passed the impugned order. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised question regarding maintainability of application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, which is not subject matter of this petition. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed on application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, then he was at liberty to challenge the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that no challenge was made to the order passed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code In view of the aforesaid, the order becomes final. 5. Now comes to the issue that as to whether on pendency of the application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code, the impugned order can be passed or not? 6. Perusal of the application shows that petitioner has tried to seek a review of the order though an application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code can be maintained on the grounds narrated therein. Since, an application is pending, I would not like to comment further on the facts to be considered by the Court below. The perusal of the order shows that even no argument was raised by the petitioner that during the pendency of his application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code, the order impugned herein may not be passed. Since, an application is pending, I would not like to comment further on the facts to be considered by the Court below. The perusal of the order shows that even no argument was raised by the petitioner that during the pendency of his application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code, the order impugned herein may not be passed. In any case, the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order passed earlier allowing the application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code Pendency of an application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot suo moto be taken as stay order against the order passed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code 7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed summarily. 8. The Court below is, however, expected to decide the application so moved under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code expeditiously and if possible then to decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.Petition dismissed. *******