Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 798 (PAT)

Mahendra Mukhiya v. State of Bihar

2012-05-16

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 18.5.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul whereby and whereunder the learned lower court had taken cognizance under Section 420 of the IPC and directed the petitioner to face trial. 3. Without adverting to the merit of the case, whereupon it appears that plea of the petitioner appears to be tenable but from the conduct of the petitioner itself such privilege which the court in normal phenomena would have granted, is being seized. Petitioner had challenged the order of cognizance under Cr. Revision before Sessions Judge bearing Cr. Revision No. 82/09 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 17th November, 2009 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul. The aforesaid order has not been put under challenge. The non challenging of the aforesaid order gives a different colour of present sequence and the fact behind the aforesaid deficiency appears to be on account of an embargo put under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. wherein 2nd revision is prohibited. 4. Not only second revision rather any order which has been brought under challenge invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. appears to be influenced by way of second revision, appears to be barred and non maintainable and virtually petitioner was very much apprehensive on this score and that happens to be reason behind not challenging of the order of revision although the same happens to be incorporated under para-2 of the petition and further the order is available as Annexure-1 of the petition. 5. For better appreciation para-1 of the petition is incorporated hereinbelow: – (1) That this is an application for quashing of cognizance order dated 18.5.2009 passed by learned C.J.M., Supaul in connection with Complaint Case No. 394C/09, which was filed by the opposite party no.2, against the petitioners/U/Sections-420, 469, 471 & 379 of the IPC in the court of C.J.M., Supaul, on 13.4.2009, the learned C.J.M., Supaul, recorded the solemn affirmation of the complainant on 18.5.09 and the learned C.J.M., Supaul, took cognizance against the petitioners U/S-420 of the I.P.C. on 18.5.09 and directed the office to issue summons against the petitioner. 6. 6. So the disclosure whatever been made under para-2 in consonance with Annexure-1 is not going to rectify the defects whatever proceeding on the record more-so taking into account the relief whatever been sought for under para-1 of the petition and on account thereof, instant petition appears to be non maintainable and is accordingly, rejected.