Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE instant miscellaneous petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.8.2007 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Ratangarh in Cr. Regular Case No. 17/2004 whereby the respondents No. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the offence under Section 420, 120B and 193 I.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order impugned.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity of leading evidence before the trial court. He submits that the trial court did not summon the witnesses and recorded acquittal of the respondents in illegal fashion. Upon consideration of the judgment impugned and the legal situation, it is apparent that the respondents were prosecuted on a complaint. The learned trial Judge after following due process of law acquitted the respondents by the judgment dated 30.8.2007. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal then he had to challenge the same by filing the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. He did not assail the judgment impugned by way of proper remedy provided under the Cr.P.C. instead after nearly one year and eight months of the judgment of acquittal he has preferred this miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the order of acquittal of the respondents. The miscellaneous petition was obviously filed in order to avoid bar of limitation which would be operating against the petitioner if he had filed leave to appeal. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition being bereft of merit and misconceived is rejected.;