Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 913 (RAJ)

Sanjay Shah v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, while praying for following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humble prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.9.2013 as well as 8.1.2010 (Annexures-1 and 2) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside. Any other order of direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while claiming maintenance from the petitioner in the year 2006. The said application of the respondent No. 2 was allowed ex parte by the Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) vide order dated 7.10.2006 and a direction was issued to the petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order before the Trial Court, however, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2008. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, who vide order dated 23.5.2009, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. While passing the order dated 23.5.2009, the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara has directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No. 2 from the date of the application with the observation that the said amount of interim maintenance would be subject to the final decision of the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Banswara has also imposed a cost of Rs. 3000/- upon the petitioner. 4. When the petitioner had failed to pay the amount of interim maintenance to the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in the order dated 23.5.2009, the respondent No. 2 moved an application for execution of the said directions. 3000/- upon the petitioner. 4. When the petitioner had failed to pay the amount of interim maintenance to the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in the order dated 23.5.2009, the respondent No. 2 moved an application for execution of the said directions. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 8.1.2010 has issued recovery warrant against the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of due amount of interim maintenance. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, which was later on transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) and the Revisional Court has dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 20.9.2013, against which the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner while observing that the petitioner has filed the revision petition and prayed for review of the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, however, the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to review the said order dated 23.5.2009 and, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. With these observations, the learned Revisional Court has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. 7. After going through the order dated 20.9.2013, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Revisional Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner because the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to review the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in the earlier revision petition filed by the petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara was not challenged by the petitioner and the same has attained the finality. Even in this petition also, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 23.5.2009. 8. It is not in dispute that the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara was not challenged by the petitioner and the same has attained the finality. Even in this petition also, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 23.5.2009. ere is no force Pena Code, 1860 - Sections 380 & 413 - Acquittal - Leave to appeal - No recovery from the respondent Shakil and Salim - Identification proceedings does not bear the signature of the witnesses - No evidence to prove that the respondent No. 3 purchased the stolen property - Recovery from the accused 'M' is doubtful - Held, Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents. 9. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, this Court does not find any illegal in the order passed by the Revision Court. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******