Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5102/2015dismissed

Mhd. Farooque v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-07-01Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5102 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2008 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Mhd. Farooque son of Hazi Abdul Rasaid resident of Mohalla - Khairabad, house no. 998, Sultanpur, Pargana - Miranpur Dist - Sultanpur U.P. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

State Of Bihar 2.

Hazi Noor Muhamad @ Mohamad Noor son of Late Zahoor Ahmad resident of Mohalla - Madar Darwaja Sasaram P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Behzad Akhtar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is against order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtas in Complaint Case No.265 of 2008 whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance and issued process against the petitioner to face trial for offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

3. Prayer on behalf of the petitioner is for time.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order in Cr. Revision No. 301 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sasaram which was heard by learned A.D.J.-IV, Sasaram and by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5102 of 2015 dt.01-07-2019 2/2 order dated 18.09.2014 rejecting the prayer to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.03.2010. This fact has not been clearly disclosed in para-5 of the present petition deliberately for the reason that second revision petition is barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and this application for quashing is in disguise of second revision application.

5. I find substance in the submission aforesaid. Since second revision application is not maintainable at the hands of same petitioner who has already approached either before the learned Sessions Judge or before the High Court and in the present case, the petitioner has already approached before the learned Sessions Judge against the same order. Hence, this application is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.07.2019 Transmission Date 03.07.2019