Skip to content


Mohammad Khan Hanif Khan Vs. Shamim Begum and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1977CriLJ116
AppellantMohammad Khan Hanif Khan
RespondentShamim Begum and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 5. this application in revision was therefore clearly not maintainable in view of section 397(3). cr......the applicant filed criminal revision no. 77 of. 1975 on 10-10-1975 in the court of sessions judge shahjahanpur against the order of judicial magistrate shahjahanpur dated 5-8-1975 which was pending when he filed the present revision in this court on 17-11-1975. subsection (3) of section 397, cr.p.c. 1973 runs as follows:if an application under this section has been made by any person either to the high court or to the sessions judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.4. it is clear from a plain reading of sub-section (3) of section 397, cr. p, c, that this court could not entertain the present revision against the order of the judicial magistrate i, shahjahanpur dated 5-8-1975, on 17-11-1975 as an application in revision had been.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.N. Katju, J

1. This is an application in revision against the order of Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur dated 5-8-1975 directing the applicant to pay Rs. 125 per month as maintenance allowance to his wife Smt. Shamim Begum opposite party No. 1 under Section 125, Cri.P.C. 1973.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 that this application is not inaintainable.

3. The applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 77 of. 1975 on 10-10-1975 in the court of Sessions Judge Shahjahanpur against the order of Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur dated 5-8-1975 which was pending when he filed the present revision in this Court on 17-11-1975. Subsection (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. 1973 runs as follows:

If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

4. It is clear from a plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr. P, C, that this Court could not entertain the present revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate I, Shahjahanpur dated 5-8-1975, on 17-11-1975 as an application in revision had been made by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur on 10-10-1975. It is true that the applicant got his Criminal Revision No. 77 of 1975 filed in the court of Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur on 10-10-1975 dismissed on 18-2-1976 as not pressed but this cannot give power to this Court to entertain the present revision filed on 17-11-1975. It is not the decision of a revision application by the Sessions Judge which bars the filing of a second revision application by the same person in the High Court but the mere making of an application in revision before a Sessions Judge makes the revision application of the same person before the High Court not maintainable.

5. This application in revision was therefore clearly not maintainable in view of Section 397(3). Cr.P.C. 1973. It is accordingly rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //