SHIVKARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioner -Shivkaran being aggrieved with the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in five criminal revision petitions No. 40/2013, 41/2013, 42/2013, 43/2013 and 44/2013. The criminal revision petitions No. 40/2013, 41/2013, 42/2013 and 43/2013 were filed by the respondents Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh respectively being aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the trial court took cognizance against the above named respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B I.P.C. The Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2013 was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner whereby the trial court discharged the respondent Sulaksh Jyani for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. The revisional court in the criminal revision petitions No. 40/2013, 41/2013, 42/2013 and 43/2013 has set aside the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned trial court whereby cognizance has been taken against the respondents Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. However, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2013 filed by the petitioner, the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the trial court whereby respondent Sulaksh Jyani was discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B I.P.C.

(2.) BEING aggrieved with the orders dated 3.10.2013 passed by the revisional court, the petitioner has filed these criminal misc. petitions.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.