Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 117 (UTT)

Dhyan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-03-08

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is order dated 27.04.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/III FTC, Dehradun affirming the order dated 06.10.2006, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner herein to summon the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC was dismissed. 2. Brief facts inter alia are that petitioner preferred a complaint before the learned Magistrate with the allegations that respondents had fabricated signatures and had forged voter list and had moved an application before the District Panchayat Raj Officer against the petitioner. Having received the notice from the District Panchayat Raj Officer on the complaint so filed, petitioner came to know that complaint contained, the signatures of such persons, who are neither residents of village nor their names figured in the voter list. The contention of the petitioner was that since complaint was preferred against the petitioner along with forged and fabricated signatures, therefore, respondents are guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 3. Having perused the entire material made available on record before the learned Magistrate, he was not satisfied with the contention of the petitioner and could not find prima facie case against the respondents, therefore, he was pleased to reject the complaint under Section 203 Cr. P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the revision was not able to find out any illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, refused to summon the accused persons and ultimately, dismissed the revision. 4. I have heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have carefully perused the entire material made available on record. 5. Having heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal at length, I am not able to find out any fault in the orders passed by the courts below. Mr. Nautiyal was not able to point out any illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity in the orders impugned. Moreover, jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is akin to the revisional jurisdiction. Once a revisional jurisdiction has already been exercised by the Sessions Judge, ordinarily, this Court should not permit the revisionist to once again approach this Court by invoking powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. since second revision under Section 397 Cr. Moreover, jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is akin to the revisional jurisdiction. Once a revisional jurisdiction has already been exercised by the Sessions Judge, ordinarily, this Court should not permit the revisionist to once again approach this Court by invoking powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. since second revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C. is barred, however, it does not mean that in appropriate case, this Court will not entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. even if this Court finds fault in the judgment passed by the revisional court. It goes without saying that ordinary, this Court should not permit the revisionist to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the revisional court’s order, however, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. In view of the above, the petition fails and is dismissed.