Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1426 (RAJ)

Sushil Kumar v. State

2013-08-07

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble JAIN, J.—This revision petition was filed by accused-petitioner Sushil Kumar against the order 27.12003 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 17/2003 whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC. 2. The petitioner has unneccessily kept this matter pending in this court for a long time only because proceedings of the lower court had been stayed by order dated 25.4.2003 of this Court and as it is usual practice, once the stay is obtained, the party in whose favour stay is granted, never appears to argued the matter on merits. 3. A revision against the order of a Magistrate may be filed directly in the High Court also but the propriety requires that the aggrieved party should first go to the inferior court, i.e. Sessions Court, otherwise this Court will be flooded with so many cases to do the job of Sessions Judge only. In my view when the two forums are available then necessarily it is a matter of propriety for the aggrieved party to first approach the lower forum, except in rare and special circumstances. By doing this, party seeking order from the Magistrate will get double remedy, first, he may approach the court of Sessions in revision and then, if legally permissible, under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. before the High Court. In the present case, no special and exceptional reasons have been assigned by the accused-petitioner for filing this revision petition directly in this Court. 4. Following rulings may be referred here in support of my view:- (1) Natwar Lal vs. The State, 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 617 (2) Padmanabh Keshav Kamat vs. Anup R. Kantak and Ors., 1999 Cri. L.J. 122 (Bombay) and (3) Tej Ram M. Gaikwad vs. Smt. Sunanda T. Gaikwad & Ors., 1996 Cri.L.J. (Bombay) 172. (By Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, as he then was.) 5. In the result, the revision petition is returned to the petitioner for pre-sentation before the proper court. The office shall return the original revision petition to the petitioner after making proper endorsement on it and after re-taining a true copy thereof. The petitioner shall then after immediately present the same, if he chooses to do so, before the concerned Sessions Judge who will entertain and decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. 6. The office shall return the original revision petition to the petitioner after making proper endorsement on it and after re-taining a true copy thereof. The petitioner shall then after immediately present the same, if he chooses to do so, before the concerned Sessions Judge who will entertain and decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. 6. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 8.9.2013 at 10.30 a.m. The stay order passed in this case on 25.4.2003 against the proceedings of the lower court will remain operative only up to 8.9.2013 and then after it will be in the discretion of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur to extend or not to extend the stay order against the proceedings of the lower court. Criminal Complaint Case No. 17/2003 under Section 379 IPC is said to be pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur. The Sessions Judge, Udaipur is requested to expedite the disposal of this criminal revision at the earliest. 7. The delay caused in disposal of the matter will not be the hinderance and the rights of the petitioner will be protected for the purpose of limitation in this regard. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court immediately.