Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1056 (RAJ)

Abbu Khan @ Abu Saleem v. Narpat Singh Detha

2018-04-23

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur (here in after to be referred as 'the revisional court') in revision petition No.92/2018, whereby the criminal revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.4, Jodhpur Metro (here in after to be referred as 'the trial court') in criminal original case No.95/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 with a prayer for summoning the certain documents from the ICICI Bank has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court. The said proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent and in those proceedings evidence of the respondent has already been completed and the statement of the petitioner has also been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner have moved an application with a prayer for summoning the bank account details of the respondent for the month September, 2015. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has observed that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 are neither necessary nor desirable for the just decision of the case. The Court below has also observed that the petitioner has failed to prove the relevancy of the documents sought to be summoned in the case pending against him. 5. The revisional court has also discussed the material available on record and affirmed the order passed by the trial court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 7. Otherwise also, though the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred as per Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C., 1973 8. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.