Skip to content


Ashok Dev Vs. Bishan Swarup - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 13 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1980WLN(UC)332
AppellantAshok Dev
RespondentBishan Swarup
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the code of criminal procedure.;the impugned order was parsed on november 13, 1978. the period of limitation for filling a petition of revision against this order expired on february 12, 1979. the present petition was filed on january 22, 1980. it is thus hopelessly barred by limitation. in either view of the matter therefore this petition cannot be entertained.;petition dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause..........of section 190(1)(b) cr. pc.2. the application is wholly unusual. it will be seen that the impugned order is revisionable order under sections 397 and 401 cr. pc and as inch it was open to the petitioner to challenge it by way of a petition of revision before this court or in the court of sessions. the law is well settled that if there is a specific remedy provided in law, the aggrieved party must take recourse to that remedy in that view of the matter the petitioner cannot legitimately invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 cr. pc to challenge the order in question which as already stated is a revisable order under the code of criminal procedure.3. in substance, the present application is really a petition of revision it has been so called at an.....
Judgment:

K.S. Sidhu, J.

1. This application purports to have been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the order dated November 13, 1978, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 427 and 448 IPC on a police report in accordance with the provisions of Section 190(1)(b) Cr. PC.

2. The application is wholly unusual. It will be seen that the impugned order is revisionable order under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. PC and as inch it was open to the petitioner to challenge it by way of a petition of revision before this Court or in the Court of Sessions. The law is well settled that if there is a specific remedy provided in law, the aggrieved party must take recourse to that remedy In that view of the matter the petitioner cannot legitimately invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. PC to challenge the order in question which as already stated is a revisable order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. In substance, the present application is really a petition of revision It has been so called at an application under Section 482 Cr. PC to circumvent the provisions of the Limitation Act. The impugned order was passed on November 13, 1978. The period of limitation for filing a petition of revision against this order expired on February 12, 1979. The present petition was filed on January 22, 1980. It is thus hopelessly barred by limitation. In either view of the matter therefore this petition cannot be entertained. It is hereby dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. This is not a fit case for grant of such a certificate. The request for certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court is therefore declined.


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