Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 36 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-07

M.N.BHANDARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the criminal miscellaneous petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance of the offence has been taken ignoring the fact that private complaint was filed as counter blast on the action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act"), the petitioner gave a notice to the respondent-complainant on dishonour of cheque. The said notice was received by him on 03.02.2008 itself. The complainant-respondent was then convicted in the case initiated by the petitioner herein under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is as a counter blast and to overcome with the cheque given to the petitioner that fraudulent complaint was filed and for which, cognizance has been taken by the Court below. During the intervening period of this case, the respondent-complainant has been convicted in the case initiated under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It has bearing on the present case. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance so as the order passed on revision petition may be set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand submits that petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but a second revision petition prohibited by law. The order of cognizance is after taking note of the fact of this case, thus order may not be interfered. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find that after cognizance of the offence, a revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. In view of above, I am not inclined to entertain this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which literally become a second revision petition and otherwise all the issues raised in this petition can be argued at the time of hearing of the case for framing of the charges. 5. Accordingly, while dismissing this criminal miscellaneous petition for the reasons given above, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all the issues while arguing the matter for framing of the charges. He would be at liberty to refer the judgment of this Court rendered in the similar situation wherein the proceedings were quashed. 5. Accordingly, while dismissing this criminal miscellaneous petition for the reasons given above, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all the issues while arguing the matter for framing of the charges. He would be at liberty to refer the judgment of this Court rendered in the similar situation wherein the proceedings were quashed. Accordingly, the Court below is expected to consider all the relevant aspect while hearing the matter at time of framing of the charges and dismissal of the revision petition will not cause prejudice to the petitioner for the aforesaid purposes. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of so as the stay application.Petition dismissed. *******