JUDGMENT 1. - Heard both the parties on the question of admission of the petition of petitioner Shrinath Lohiya filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner has taken support from the following rulings: (1) Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others ( AIR 2004 SC 4674) : In this ruling, it was held that once cognizance has been taken, the Magistrate cannot re-call his own order because review of order is not contemplated in Cr.P.C. (2) Kishan Singh(D) through L.Rs. v. Gurpal Singh and ors., 2010 Cri LJ 4710 : In this ruling, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that finding of fact recorded by civil court in civil suit would not have any bearing on criminal case and vice versa. In this case it was held that Supreme Court judgment of three Judge Bench M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad and anr. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 1244 was per incuria because the judgment did not take note of the Constitution Bench judgment in M.S. Sherrif v. The state of Madras and ors., AIR 1954 SC 397 . (3) Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. (2008) 2 SCC 705 . In this case it was held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to alter or review its own judgment or order except to the extent of correcting any clerical or arithmetical errors. It deprecated the practice of filing criminal miscellaneous petitions after disposal of main matters and issuance of fresh directions in such petition. (4) M.S. Sherrif v. The State of Madras and ors., AIR 1954 SC 397 . In this case it was held that as between the civil and criminal proceedings, generally the criminal matters should be given precedence. This is so because a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. 3. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent no. 1 Pukh Raj Lohiya has submitted the copy of the following order dated 19.12.2006 for perusal of this Court: (1) Shrinath Lohiya v. State of Rajasthan & ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 598/2006. The learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that petitioner Shrinath Lohiya had previously also filed a revision petition against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and his revision no. The learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that petitioner Shrinath Lohiya had previously also filed a revision petition against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and his revision no. 5/2010 was also dismissed. The respondent has argued that in the garb of Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot be allowed to avail the remedy of second revision which is barred by law. 4. At the admission stage, I have perused the order dated 7.8.2010 passed in revision by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jodhpur as well as order dated 13.10.2009 in Criminal Case No. 258/2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. 5. Respondent no. 1 Pukhraj Lohiya was discharged of the charge of Section 420, IPC by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and that order was challenged by petitioner Shrinath lohiyda before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur and the revisional court has also upheld the order of the lower court in this respect. Now the petitioner has again challenged both the orders of the lower courts in this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. Apparently, the petitioner has come in the garb of Section 482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer of second revision which is barred by law. Apparently, there is no glaring irregularity, illegality or perversity in both the orders passed by the lower courts. Thus no case of admission is made out and the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. of the petitioner-complainant Shrinath Lohiya is dismissed at the admission stage only.Petition dismissed. *******