AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri. Justice Sujoy Paul
This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.5.2008. It is stated that a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) was filed against the petitioner by the respondent. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. The said application was considered and decided by the said Court by order dated 29.1.2008. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. before Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior bearing case No.83/08. The said Criminal Revision is rejected by the impugned order on 19.5.2008.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The singular question before this Court is whether both the Courts below have committed any error which amounts to abuse of process of law, which warrants interference u/s 482 jurisdiction by this Court. The Court below had rejected the application preferred u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner wanted to summon the accounts statement for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. The said application was rejected by assigning following reasons:
(1) It is not in dispute that Rs.35,000/-was given to the petitioner by the respondent again as a loan.
(2) The said loan amount has no impact on the case.
(3) Section 91 application was earlier also rejected by the Court below.
(4) Application is filed belatedly and has no relevance with the subject.
Revisional Court from para 5 to 8 has assigned detailed reasons while affirming the order passed by the Court below. The petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate as to how the orders passed by the Court below are incorrect.
This Court is not sitting as an appellate authority u/s 482 jurisdiction. In absence of showing any abuse of process of law, apparent illegality or perversity, no interference is warranted in this matter. No procedural irregularity is pointed out by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even chosen to file his Section 91 application which was rejected by the Courts below. In absence thereof, it cannot be examined whether reasons and relevance were shown in the said application for summoning the accounts statement.
In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts and in absence of any abuse of process of law or perversity, I find no reason to interfere in the matter. Resultantly, the petition being bereft of merit and substance is dismissed accordingly.