SHIVJI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Perused the office report and the relevant record. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint for the offences under section 500, 501 and 504 I.P.C. against 45 persons in the court of learned Munsif District and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who after recording the evidence under Sections 200 & 202 Crimial P.C. by his order dated 1-10-93 held that prima facie no offence under section 500 and 501 I.P.C. was made out and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2. Jodhpur, who by his order dated 22-1-94 dismissed the same holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was neither illegal nor arbitrary nor against the evidence recorded in the case. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The Office has pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner despite ample time did not clear the position as to how this writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) The contention of Shri Gehlot is that since second criminal revision is barred, the petitioner has been left with no remedy and as such this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for finding out the correctness, propriety and legality of the order: passed by the lower courts. He has placed reliance on Girdhar Lal and Anr. Vs. State, A.I.R. 1952 Allahabad -787 and Mahan Singh & Anr. Vs. Rana Pratap, A.I.R 1960 Punjab -160.