1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3959 of 2008 In Criminal Application No.2481 of 2008 In Criminal Application No.2339 of 2008 In Criminal Application No.2475 of 2007 In Criminal Application No.3731 of 2006 In Criminal Application No.3148 of 2006 In Criminal Application No.1906 of 2006 In Criminal Application No.114 of 2006 In Criminal Writ Petition Nos.735, 737 and 736 of 2004 (J. Kumar and others v. State of Maharashtra and another) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Applicant Shri Deokinandan Loharuka in person. Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for State. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 5th December, 2008 This is a thoroughly misconceived application filed by the applicant, who has been repeatedly told that if he cannot understand intricacies of law, he should better seek the help of a lawyer. In spite of this, the applicant has persistently made submissions, which make absolutely no sense. He has been told that he would be given ten minutes for making the 2 submissions, but he told that he cannot make the submissions in ten minutes. By this application, he has sought a general review of the entire order passed. He has been told that review of an order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction is not possible. He states that in the case of R. Rajeshwari v. H.N. Jagdish, reported at 2008(3) SCALE 443, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court may review its own order if fraud is revealed. However, the entire application does not show as to what was the fraud played on this Court, which led this Court to pass the order of which review is sought. When this order is being dictated, he has submitted as to how Advocate Shri Ramesh Darda had played a fraud on this Court. However, the application does not show as to what was the fraud. If the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, his remedy lies elsewhere. The applicant has stated that the matter may be referred to a Division Bench. He has been told that this jurisdiction vests only in the Chief Justice and not in this Court. In spite of being repeatedly told to keep quiet, he has persistently made his submissions, which are unintelligible. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE pdl