1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 113/2008 (Sohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : 28.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Yogesh Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh HQ- Nohar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.1.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the orders impugned. By order dated 21.1.2004 the trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 2 420, 467, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. It appears from the order impugned that after investigation the police filed challan against the present petitioner and the trial court took the cognizance and thereafter by order dated 21.1.2004 framed the charges. On a revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of trial court, the revisional court by a well reasoned order, dismissed the revision petition finding no error in the order of the trial court. Hence this petition. It appears from the orders impugned that the petitioner who claims himself to be the adoptive son of Smt. Chuunidevi at one point of time he himself stated that he is not the adoptive son Chunnidevi but claiming himself to be adoptive son of Chunnidevi executed a power of attorney and transferred the land which did not belong to Chunnidevi. At one place, the petitioner himself has shown his father's name Girdharisingh and at other place his father's name has been shown as Binjharam, even in the petition before the revisional court and before this Court, he has shown his father's name as Binjharam. Whether the petitioner is son of Binjharam or adoptive son of Chunnidevi, itself creates a doubt as the petitioner himself has taken two different stands. Thus, the power of attorney executed on the basis of which the land alleged to have been sold prima-facie makes out the offences for which the charges have been framed. In my view, the petitioner has already availd one revision and in 3 the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., he seek second revision which is otherwise barred by Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any error, illegality or perversity warranting interference in the inherent jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the orders impugned would result in manifest injustice or abuse of process of any Court. The criminal misc. petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 4 S.B.Cr. Stay Petition No. 206/08 In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 113/2008 (Sohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : 28.03.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Yogesh Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. Since the criminal misc. petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp