The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated upon by a particular forum, then entertaining an application under Sections 145 & 146 of the Cr.P.C. would not be appropriate, and would result in multiplicity of litigation, not in the interest of the parties, and a waste of public time.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Cr. revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dt. 30.03.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in Cr. Revision Petition No. 52/2007 [Sohan Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr.], may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment dt. 17.05.2007 passed by the learned Sub Division Magistrate, Desuri may kindly be restored."

3. The controversy in the present case is limited to the extent that the present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners, against the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision Petition No. 52/2007 by which the order, dated 17.05.2007, passed by the S.D.M., Desuri, District Pali in Cr. Misc. Case No. 11/1989, was quashed and set aside. Through the said order dated 17.05.2007, the concerned S.D.M. had directed that the possession of the land in dispute between the present parties, be handed over to the petitioners, whilst upholding two judgments passed by the learned Civil Court; the first being Civil Original Case No. 82 of 1993, was dismissed on 13.12.2000, and the second being Civil Regular First Appeal No. 2 of 2001, was also subsequently dismissed, with the concurrent finding that the Will in question, basis which the respondents staked their claim in relation to the property in question, was fraudulent and therefore did not create any rights in the favour of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 30.03.2011, by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali set aside and quashed the order of the concerned S.D.M., while remanding the matter back to the concerned S.D.M. to decide the matter afresh, despite the earlier order so passed being a well reasoned order, on merits of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

5.1 Bharat Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2827, wherein the following was observed:

"32. In the case of Kunjbihari v. Balram and Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 66, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held where rights of the parties have already been adjudicated upon by a different forum, the parties must respect that finding. In such a situation proceeding under Section 145 is not to be initiated to disturb the finding. In that case the High Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. refused to quash the 145 proceeding. The same thing has been done here. However, this Court allowed appeal by setting aside the High Court's order as also directing that Section 145 proceeding be dropped.

33. In this case, this Court is of the opinion that if the respondents are aggrieved by the findings reached in the Bataidari proceeding they have the statutory right of the appeal to be exercised according to law. Without doing that the affect of Bataidari proceeding cannot be scuttled with the subterfuge and juggle of 144/145 proceedings. In the facts of this case, such a proceeding is an abuse.

34. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the High Court has not approached the legal issues involved in this case in their correct perspective nor considered the affect of Section 48E or Sub-section (13) of the said Act on a Section 145 proceeding.

5.2 Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 1504:

"12. The question then is whether there is any infirmity in the Order of the S.D.M. discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this subject-matter has been settled by the deci