[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.)(CRLMP) NO.2620/2016

Bheru Lal S/o Shri Rang Lal, Aged about 40 years,

resident of Bardod, Police Station Hamirgarh, District,

Bhilwara (Raj.).

….Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Ratni w/o Bheru Lal Jat, resident of Bardod,

Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

3. Chanda D/o Bheru Lal resident of Bardod, Police

Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

...Respondents

Date of Order

:: 23.09.2016

HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.

Mr. A.K.Choudhary, for the Petitioner.

Mr. M.S.Panwar, Public Prosecutor for the State.

O R D E R

------------

BY THE COURT:

By the instant misc. petition, under Section 482

Cr.P.C., petitioner has assailed impugned order dated

26.05.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate No.1,

Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), restoring a

maintenance petition filed by the private respondents

under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

[ 2 ]

The facts, in brief, are that private respondents

filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against

petitioner for claiming maintenance. It appears that on

a particular date of hearing respondent No.2 was not

present before the learned trial Court and therefore in

her absence the claim petition was dismissed. Later

on, she made endeavor for restoration of the petition.

Learned trial Court heard rival submissions on the

application and taking into account the judicial

precedents, on which reliance was placed by both the

parties, granted indulgence to the private respondents

and by order impugned restored the claim petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

argued that a criminal Court is having no power of

restoring proceedings as there is a legal embargo

envisaged under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused impugned order.

At the outset, it may be observed that there

remains no quarrel that Section 362 mandates that a

criminal Court cannot alter its judgment but then

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not criminal

proceedings in abstract sense and these proceedings

are quasi judicial in nature.

A bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 126

Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that a Court, while

considering a petition for maintenance under Section

125 Cr.P.C., is empowered to determine a claim ex

parte, and on being satisfied, that there was a good

cause for non-appearance of opposite party, may also

set aside the ex parte order on payment of cost to the

[ 3 ]

other party. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom,

while prescribing procedure for determining claims

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has made it clear that such

proceedings are not in strict sense and criminal

proceedings to be treated as quasi criminal. Section

127 Cr.P.C. also envisages power of a Court for

alteration in the allowances determined earlier or to

cancel the same.

Therefore, in totality, I am not persuaded that

impugned order passed by learned trial Court is dehors

the law or the same has resulted in miscarriage of

justice.

Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby

dismissed.

( P.K. LOHRA ),J.

Twinkle/20