1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 937/2004 (Mohan Lal V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 11/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR None present for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- No one appears for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, public prosecutor for the State. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No.08/2004, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in FR No.187/01 arising out of FIR No.452/01 P.S. Sardarpura, was 2 dismissed. I have carefully gone through the memo of petition, orders impugned as also record of the court below. There are two witnesses namely Kapoor Singh and Mohd. Hussain, according to the petitioner who witnessed the occurrence. The statements of these two witnesses were recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, these witnesses did not support the case of the petitioner as is evident from the order passed by the revisional court and the material on record. It appears that the dispute was between father and son. No independent witness supported the case of the petitioner. Even the petitioner did not produce these witnesses before the trial court in a protest petition filed by him. Thus the material eye witnesses have neither been produced nor examined by the trial court. Both the courts below have concurrently found that there is no ground to proceed against respondents No. 2 to 6. There is concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below and the petitioner having availed one revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., in the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.p.C., the petitioner seeks to avail second revision which is otherwise barred by law in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the orders impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any 3 Court warranting interference. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases wherein it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the order impugned has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In my view no such case is made out. The criminal misc. petition has no merit and it is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp