Skip to content


Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Jagdish Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Case Number

S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 352 of 1989

Judge

Reported in

1991(1)WLN133

Appellant

Abdul Majid and ors.

Respondent

Jagdish Singh and ors.

Disposition

Petition dismissed

Excerpt:


.....court.;petition dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....the property and appointed the incharge of the police out post, ratanada, jodhpur, as the receiver of the property and dropped the proceedings under section 145 cr. p.c. against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned additional sessions judge no. 1, jodhpur, who, by his order dated december 1, 1978, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. against this order, no revision or the petition under section 482 cr. p.c. was filed by the petitioner and that order has become final and after a lapse of about four years, the present application for re-opening the matter has been filed.4. i have perused the order passed by the learned lower court and the record of the case.5. when the earlier proceedings with respect to the same matter and between the same parties ended against the petitioner and the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned additional sessions judge no. 1, jodhpur, was decided against him, therefore, no application for re-opening the case was maintainable before the learned additional district magistrate (city), jodhpur, and the order passed by the learned magistrate dated april 6, 1989, thus cannot be.....

Judgment:


B.R. Arora, J.

1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated April 6, 1989, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, rejected the application Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioners.

2. Abdul Majid, on November 29, 1974, filed an application Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, to re-open the case which was decided by him on March 26, 1977. The notice of this application was issued to the opposite party, who contested the application and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that if the party has any grievance with the order dated March 26, 1977, then they should have approach the Appellate/Revisional Court to seek redress, but the order passed by the Court earlier cannot be re-opened. It is against this order that the present petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed.

3. Jagdish Singh filed a complaint Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, against Abdul Majid with respect to a building situated at Ratanada Circle behind Puri Petrol Pump and alleged therein that there is an apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the possession of this premises between him and the respondent Abdul Majid and it was therefore, prayed that the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. may be initiated and the property may be attached and after enquiry, the possession of the applicant over this premises may be declared. This application was contested by Abdul Majid. The learned Magistrate drew the preliminary order on May 3, 1976, and issued notice to the parties. The learned Magistrate, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, by his order dated March 26, 1977, attached the property and appointed the Incharge of the Police Out Post, Ratanada, Jodhpur, as the Receiver of the property and dropped the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, who, by his order dated December 1, 1978, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Against this order, no revision or the petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by the petitioner and that order has become final and after a lapse of about four years, the present application for re-opening the matter has been filed.

4. I have perused the order passed by the learned lower Court and the record of the case.

5. When the earlier proceedings with respect to the same matter and between the same parties ended against the petitioner and the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, was decided against him, therefore, no application for re-opening the case was maintainable before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, and the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated April 6, 1989, thus cannot be said to be, in any way, illegal, incorrect or improper. If the petitioner had any grievance against the order dated March 26, 1977, which merged in the order dated December 1, 1978, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, he should have filed the petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. before the High Court and that too in the year 1978 itself. After a lapse of about six years, such type of application cannot be allowed to be entertained. Even other wise, Under Section 145 Cr. P.C., only the question of possession can be decided while the rights with respect to the property in dispute can be decided only by a civil Court. The petitioner has not taken recourse to get his rights determined by the civil Court but he has filed the petition Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. again.

6. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //