Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs State on 24 November, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC(PET.) NO. 998 / 2009
Ratan Lal S/o Late Shri Naharmal Jagetiya, Age 55
years, Resident of Netaji Subhash Market, P.S.
Kotwali, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
__________________________________________
For Petitioners : None present
For Respondents : Mr. V.S.Rajpurohit, Public
Prosecutor, for the State.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 24/11/2016 Petitioner-complainant has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 13.04.2009, passed by Sessions Judge Bhilwara, (for short, 'learned revisional Court'), whereby learned revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner upholding order dated 26.03.2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, (for short, 'learned trial Court').
The learned trial Court, at the threshold, dismissed the criminal complaint of the petitioner under Section 219 IPC wherein complainant has made reckless allegations against some of the Judicial Officers and sitting Judge of this Court. Learned trial (2 of 3) [CRLMP-998/2009] Court after examining the complaint has found that allegations are wholly unfounded and have been leveled to lower down the reputation of the entire judicial institution. In totality, the learned trial Court found complaint bereft of any merit and categorized the same as an affirmative attempt by the complainant to scandalize the judicial institution.
Being aggrieved by the same petitioner approached the learned revisional Court and the learned revisional Court, while fully concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, has declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court.
I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned revisional Court as well as learned trial Court.
Upon perusal of the impugned orders, in my opinion, the learned Courts below have not committed any manifest error of law which requires interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. A litigant though well within its right to take shelter of the law for ventilating his grievances but no litigant is permitted to denigrate or undermine dignity and majesty of the Court. The whole endeavor of the petitioner-complainant is to scandalize the entire judicial institution which cannot be countenanced. I (3 of 3) [CRLMP-998/2009] am constrained to observe that the complainant has in fact abused the process of the Court by filing such false and fabricated complaint arraying some of the Judicial Officers and sitting Judge of this Court as party to the complaint.
Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. Twinkle/1