UMED SINGH PAWAR Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts for the disposal of this petition are that Ram Singh obtained an award from the Labour Court for the recovery of Rs. 4135.66 from the petitioners. The Labour Court also ordered the reinstatement of the father of respondent. Ram Singh initiated execution proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 4135.66. It is alleged that petitioner Umed Singh Pawar fabricated the payment voucher and produced the same before the executing court to show that the amount has been paid to Ram Singh, but according to Ram Singh that document was forged by the petitioner. Ram Singh filed criminal complaint against the petitioner. The said complaint was dismissed on 15.10.1988. Against that order, Ram Singh preferred a revision petition. The same was accepted vide order dated 4.1.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and it was directed that learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case and decide it on merits. On receipt of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate charge-sheeted the petitioner under Sections 467/471/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the above-said orders, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the orders dated 4.1.1989 passed by learned Sessions Judge and learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dated 11.12.1993 vide which charge against the accused-petitioners was ordered to be framed.

(2.) MR . Kapil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge vide which the order of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was set aside and case was remanded back and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has charge- sheeted the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Code i.e. for filing a revision petition. He further submitted that petitioners instead of availing that remedy has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that when an alternative remedy is available, then the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.