Back
2011(2) Bankmann 355 (Raj.)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
H.R. Panwar, J.
Mal Chand Bagrecha —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan
and Anr. —Respondents
S.B. Crl Misc. Petition No. 226 of 2008
Decided on 20.7.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:T.S. Champawa, Advocate.
Public Prosecutor:O.P. Singaria, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Court cannot obstruct legitimate prosecution.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Dishonour of cheque—Revisional Court set aside order passed by Trial Court whereby application filed by respondent seeking to recall order taking cognizance and dropping proceedings came to be dismissed—Revisional Court fell in error in setting aside order in question—Order impugned passed by Revisional Court set aside. (Paras 3 to 6)
H.R. Panwar, J.—By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC the judgment and order dated 15.9.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu (for short ‘the Revisional Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2004 has been challenged whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 Narain Chand against the order dated 15.10.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar (for short ‘the Trial Court’ hereinafter) dismissing the application filed by respondent No.2 seeking to drop the proceedings, was allowed.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It appears that the proceedings were initiated in the year 1998 by way of filing a complaint by the petitioner against respondent Narain Chand for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter). Thereafter, the Trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the complaint case. When the matter came up for evidence of complainant at that stage, an application was filed by respondent No.2 Narain Chand dated 21.7.2001 seeking to recall the order taking cognizance and dropping the proceedings. That application came to be dismissed by order dated 15.10.2004 by the Trial Court, against which, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition and the Revisional Court allowed the revision petition relying on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala.1 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision in K.M. Mathew’s case has been overruled by Three Judges Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors.2
4. In my view, the Revisional Court fell in error in setting aside the order dated 15.10.2004 since the decision in K.M. Mathew’s case do not hold the field as it has been overruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (supra). Thus, the order impugned cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside.
5. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 15.9.2007 passed by Revisional Court is set aside.
Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed.
*******
