The court's decision emphasized the importance of relying on official medical reports and the limitations on filing second revision petitions under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

1. - The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in revision petition No.66/2013 whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Mobile Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 190 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner, the police filed charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under Sections 297, 337 I.P.C. read with Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The cognizance was also taken against the accused persons for the above mentioned offences by the trial court. At that stage, the petitioner moved an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and prayed that the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. may also be taken against the accused.

3. The learned trial court, after taking into consideration the material available on record and the material placed by the petitioner before it, has found that from the x-ray report and the opinion of the expert it is not borne out that the injury received by the petitioner is grievous one and, therefore, it is not proper to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. against the accused.

4. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court dismissed the said revision petition. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner has received grievous injury, the application preferred by him for taking cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. is liable to be allowed. It is contended that from the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had received grievous injury in the accident, however, the courts below have illegally rejected the application of the petitioner without considering this aspect.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the courts below and the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

8. The learned courts below have considered the documents related to the treatment of the petitioner and has given a clear finding that in the injury report, the injury sustained by the petitioner is mentioned as simple in nature and the documents produced by the petitioner of a private hospital cannot be relied upon. It is not in dispute that the injury report prepared by the Government Hospital has shown injury received by the petitioner as simple in nature.

9. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.

10. Apart from it, though the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in fact, it is a second revision petition which is clearly barred as per Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and the same is, therefore, not maintainable.Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

*******