SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Raj) 929

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.L.Tibrewal, J.
Mohini Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 939 of 1994.
Decided On : 25-03-1996

Relief cannot be given after final decision, and the order passed in revision is final and cannot be altered or modified.

Headnote:

Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code - Petition for land handover and payment - Court dismissed the petition as it was misconceived and relief sought cannot be given after the criminal case was finally decided - Order passed in revision is final and cannot be altered or modified - Petition filed after six years from the date of decision in the revision petition - Petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

Petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for land handover and payment, based on a previous revision petition decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petition to be misconceived and the relief sought cannot be given as the criminal case stood finally decided, and the order passed in revision is final and cannot be altered or modified. The petition was also filed after six years from the date of the decision in the revision petition.

Issues: Misrepresentation of compromise, relief sought after final decision, time limitation for filing petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief cannot be given after final decision, order passed in revision is final, and time limitation for filing petition.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it was misconceived and relief sought cannot be given after the criminal case was finally decided. The order passed in revision is final and cannot be altered or modified. The petition was also filed after six years from the date of the decision in the revision petition.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this petition Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the prayer of the petitioner is that non petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 be directed to hand over the land to him and also to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest:

3. This petition has been filed on 3.5.1994. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 119/93 was decided by this Court on 21.4.1988, (sic) whereby the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone and in lieu of the reduction of imprisonment, sentence of fine was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 11,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- were ordered to be paid to the complainant if the fine was recovered.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel that the aforesaid order was obtained in revision by making a misrepresentation to the Court that the accused party will hand over land to the complainant side and the complainant side was demanding Rs. 30,000/- from the accused side. From the record it does not appear that any such compromise was filed before the Court and it was only an argument on behalf of the counsel for the accused that in case the parties settle the matter by way of compromise, then a lenient view may be taken. With regard to the compromise, the Court did not pass any order while deciding revision petition, nor there was any direction that the accused will hand over land to the complainant.

5. In view of the above, this petition is wholly misconceived. Otherwise also, the relief sought in this petition cannot be given Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code when the criminal case stood finally decided on 21.4.1988. The order passed in revision is final and the same cannot be altered or modified. Further, the petition has been filed after six years from the date of decision in the revision petition.

6. Judged from any angle, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

7. The decisions in Sheosagar Singh v. Sitaram Kumhar & Anr., AIR 1952 Patna 48 and Mohammad Zaman & Ors. v. Manzur Hasan & Ors., AIR 1921 All. 146 have no application in the present matter.

8. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top