Court Dismisses Special Criminal Application, Emphasizes No Second Revision

Arvindbhai V. Patel Versus State of Gujarat

Arvindbhai V. Patel Versus State of Gujarat - [1995] 83 COMP. CAS. 508 (GUJ.) Issues:
1. Maintainability of the special criminal application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Rejection of revision application and maintainability of a second revision application.
3. Rejection of request for stay of further proceedings.
4. Applicability of judgment regarding staying civil and criminal proceedings under section 391(6) of the Companies Act.
5. Interpretation of the judgment in Divya Vasundhara Financiers Pvt. Ltd. case.
6. Duty of the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal of cases by Judicial Magistrates.
7. Discharge of the application and direction to trial court to proceed with the case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a special criminal application seeking to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Case No. 1327 of 1989. The court noted that the petition, though not explicitly stated, could only be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court held that since the revision application was rejected, a second revision application was not maintainable under Section 399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the impugned order final. Therefore, the special criminal application was deemed not maintainable in the eye of the law.

2. The court further observed that the request for stay of further proceedings, rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, was an interlocutory order. As per Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, no revision application would lie against such an order. Hence, the court concluded that the petition was required to be dismissed on this ground as well.

3. The petitioner relied on a judgment regarding staying civil and criminal proceedings under section 391(6) of the Companies Act. However, the court clarified that the judgment was not applicable in the present case as it dealt with directors, whereas the petitioner was a manager. The court emphasized that the judgment did not mandate a stay of proceedings in all cases falling under section 391(6) and highlighted the preference for expeditious disposal of criminal cases.

4. Additionally, the court highlighted the duty of the High Court to ensure expeditious and proper disposal of cases by Judicial Magistrates, as per Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had rejected the petitioner's contentions, providing no basis for the High Court to entertain the application on its merits.

5. Consequently, the court rejected the application, discharged the rule, vacated the interim relief, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case promptly. The court also denied the request for extending interim relief, emphasizing the importance of expediting the case, especially considering the victim's circumstances.