GAURAV AGARWAL Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner Gaurav Agarwal has impugned the order dated 1st June, 1998, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 (1)(7) of P.F.A. Act, 1954 read with Rule 50 (1) of Rules 1955 and proceeded against the accused persons namely Ram Singh, Gaurav and Radha Devi.

(2.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner Gaurav Agarwal as also the learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order dated 1st June, 1998, it is noticed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur took the cognizance of the afore-stated offences on the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and proceeded against the above mentioned three accused persons and ordered to summon them. Aggrieved with this order, M/s. A.P. Agro Private Limited filed a revision petition, which stood decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur vide order dated 11th November, 1998. It is found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur allowed the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 1st June, 1998.

(3.) The petitioner in this case, has again implored by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition to quash and set-aside the order dated 1st June, 1998 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, which had already been set-aside by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in his revisional jurisdiction. It is not understandable as to why the petitioner has filed this Misc. Petition and implored to set-aside that order which had already been set-aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur. It is found to be a transparent abuse of the process of law by the petitioner. The impugned order, which had already been set-aside, cannot be set-aside again by this Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The Criminal Misc. Petition is found to be totally frivolous, vexatious, baseless and groundless and the petitioner is further found to have abused the process of court.