[2025:RJ-JP:47979] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6194/2018 Kajodmal Chaudhary S/o Shri Nolaram, R/o Vill. Gajadharpura Kalwar Road Police Station Kalwar Teh. And Distt. Jaipur. ----Petitioner-Complainant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP, Raj. 2. Shri Kailash Vishnoi The Then Police Commissioner West Jaipur, Presently Superintendent Of Police Bharatpur. 3. Shri Ratanlal Gurjar Then Police Sub Inspector Police Station Banipark, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Adv., with Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/11/2025 The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner-complainant Kajodmal Choudhary assailing the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan rejecting the criminal revision (No.30/2016) preferred by him and affirming the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.7/2016 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for offences under Sections 217, 166, 506 & 120B of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:47979] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6194/2018] Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant submitted a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 inter alia alleging therein that in respect of a forgery, he filed a complaint against accused Madanlal, Smt. Kamli, Smt. Munni & Smt. Bhuri. On the said complaint, FIR No.43/2008 was registered at PS Banipark, Jaipur, in which, after investigation, Police filed charge-sheet only against accused Madanlal and not against remaining accused persons. Subsequently, in respect of forged consent letter, the complainant filed another FIR No.108/2011 at Police Station Banipark, Jaipur against the aforesaid accused persons, in which also, Police filed negative final report while acting in collusion with the accused party. Against the negative final report, the petitioner filed an application for further investigation before the concerned Court, which was allowed and the trial Court remanded the matter back for further investigation to the Police. Upon which, the investigation was handed over to SI Ratan Lal Gurjar (respondent No.3), but during investigation, he acted in collusion with the accused persons. The petitioner made a complaint to Lokayukta regarding misconduct of respondent No.3 and also filed a complaint in this regard to respondent No.2 Kailash Vishnoi, the then Dy. Commissioner of Police. It was alleged that both respondent Nos. 2 & 3 called the petitioner and gave threatening while using filthy language and also harassed him for making complaint to Lokayukta. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 190 Cr.PC against the accused- respondent Nos. 2 & 3. [2025:RJ-JP:47979] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6194/2018] Upon filing the complaint, the petitioner’s statement under Section 200 of Cr.PC and the witnesses’ statements under Section 202 of Cr.PC were recorded. Thereafter, learned Magistrate after hearing arguments from both the sides, rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.08.2016. Being aggrieved of the order dated 04.08.2016, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan. However, the learned revisional Court, vide its order dated 31.07.2018 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this misc. petition. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the learned trial Court seriously erred in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant. He contends that it is apparent from the statement of the petitioner and other witnesses that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have committed the alleged offences by not performing their lawful duty being public servant and they unlawfully abused the petitioner while they were on duty. Counsel submits that from the material available on record, prima facie case is made out against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for offences under Sections 217, 166, 506 and 120B of IPC. But, the learned trial Court without taking into consideration material available on record, rejected the complaint of the petitioner and thereby the trial Court has committed grave illegality. He further contends that the learned revisional Court too overlooked this important aspect of the matter and affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. He thus, prays that the instant criminal misc. petition may be [2025:RJ-JP:47979] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6194/2018] allowed and the orders passed by the learned Courts below may be rejected. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after due application of mind, two Courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts and as such, no interference is required in the orders impugned. He thus, sought dismissal of the instant misc. petition. After having heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and after going through the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has duly applied its mind to the facts of the case and has passed a well reasoned order rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. There is nothing on record which suggests that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were not investigating the matter in a just and fair manner and they were in collusion with the accused party. Further, the allegations of threatening and harassment to the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 also not appears to be accepted. The order passed by the trial Court has also been rightly affirmed by the revisional Court. Two Courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts. Both the Courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction and discretion in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. It is worth mentioning that in the garb of present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC the petitioner has filed second revision petition which is not maintainable. In the case of Deepti @ Arati Rai vs Akhil Rai & Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 751, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:47979] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6194/2018] "4. .................The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can not be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not legal and just it will have to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993." In the case of Wajid Mirza vs. Mohammed Ali Ahmed: 1982 CriLJ 590, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under:- "23. This Court in Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, (1979) 1 AJLJ 1: AIR 1979 Andra Pra 146 at p. 149 (FB) held:- The language of sub-section (3) of Section 397 contains no ambiguity. If any person had already chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to the Sessions Court under subsection (1), the same person cannot prefer a further application to the other Court. To put it in other words, sub- sec.(1) and (3) make it [2025:RJ-JP:47979] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6194/2018] clear that a person aggrieved by any order or proceeding can seek remedy by way of revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once, he has availed himself of the remedy, he is precluded from approaching the other forum. It is equally manifest from the provisions of sub-section (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has already chosen to go either to the High Court or to the Sessions court seeking a remedy and that it does not apply to the other parties or persons.‟ In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference therein. Accordingly, the misc. petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/66