M SUBRAMANIYAM Vs. RAM AGYA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. The two applicants Mr. Subramaniyam and Sri Haridas allege themselves to be partners of a firm known as Sudershan Finance Cor poration, Ram Agya Prasad Gupta has filed a complaint, which is pending as case No. 621/1979, in the Court of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur under Section 420/406/506 I. P, C. The applicants have been directed to be summoned in the said case by the Sessions Judge, who on a revision by the complaint set aside the. order of the Magistrate, by which lie had refused to summon the applicants. Hence this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by these two applicants.

(2.) SRI S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the earlier revisional order dated 6-6-1980 has become final between the parties and therefore it was not open to the Sessions Judge to direct the appli cants to appear in the case. He relied upon the case of A. R. Antule v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1988 SC 1531 (Para 27 ). It was argued that even a wrong judgment will operate as res judicata between the parties. The observation does not require any comments, except that the argument of the learned counsel on the basis of the said observation is misconceived. In the cited decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has re-considered its own earlier judgment. The later observations that the earlier decision required such re-consideration was because of the legal position flowing from statutes. The law has been pro nounced out of number by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that estoppel cannot be pleaded against law. A judgment on facts, even though wrong shall have to be treated as res judicata in a given case.