Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.583 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5167 of 2018)
S. Ramesh & Ors. Etc. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State Rep. by Inspector of Police
& Ors. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.585 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5175 of 2018)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.584 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5174 of 2018)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against a common
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.04.02
17:57:30 IST
Reason:
final judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed
1
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.
O.P. Nos. 6231, 6322 & 6232/2018 whereby the
High Court dismissed the criminal original petitions
filed by the appellants herein.
3. It is not necessary to set out the factual matrix
of the controversy except to the extent it is
necessary for the disposal of these appeals.
4. By separate orders on 01.03.2018, the High
Court allowed three Criminal Original Petition Nos.
6231/2018, 6322/2018 and 6232/2018, which
were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cr.P.C”) by the appellants herein for quashing of
CC No.1725/2013 arising out of FIR in Crime Case
No.3752/2012, CC No.4228/2015 arising out of FIR
in Crime Case No.1815/2015 and CC
No.6766/2014 arising out of FIR in Crime Case
No.3752/2012.
2
5. These orders were passed by the High Court in
the light of compromise dated 20.02.2018 said to
have been arrived at between the parties. In other
words, the High Court did not examine the merits of
these three cases in the light of the alleged
compromise said to have been arrived at between
the parties and accordingly disposed of the same
finally.
6. Respondent No.2 herein, who was respondent
No. 2 in the disposed of criminal original petitions
mentioned above, filed applications being Criminal
Misc. Petition Nos. 6611, 6612 and 6613 of 2018
praying therein to recall the orders dated
01.03.2018.
7. The recall was sought on various grounds and
on several facts. By a common impugned order, the
High Court in detail examined the questions and
finding merit in the grounds urged, recalled the
3
order dated 01.03.2018. However, while doing so,
the High Court also dismissed the three criminal
original petitions. It is against this order, the
petitioners of three criminal original petitions have
filed these appeals by way of special leave in this
Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow these appeals in part and
modify the impugned order to the extent indicated
hereinbelow.
10. In our considered opinion, though the High
Court was right in recalling its earlier orders dated
01.03.2018 passed in three criminal original
petitions but committed an error by simultaneously
dismissing three Criminal Original Petition Nos.
4
6231, 6322 and 6232 of 2018 and that too without
assigning any reason.
11. In our considered opinion, the effect of
recalling the order dated 01.03.2018 was that the
three criminal original petitions stood restored to
their respective numbers for their disposal on
merits in accordance with law as if the order dated
01.03.2018 had not been passed in those cases and
that they remained pending for their disposal on
merits.
12. The High Court, therefore, after recalling the
orders passed on 01.03.2018 should have fixed the
three criminal original petitions for their final
hearing on merits. Instead of doing that, the High
Court, on the one hand, restored the cases and, on
the other hand, dismissed them also.
13. This approach of the High Court, in our view,
was not legal and hence to that extent, the
5
impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set
aside.
14. Coming now to that part of the order, which
relates to recalling of three orders passed on
01.03.2018, we find no good ground to interfere in
the same.
15. In our opinion, keeping in view the grounds
taken by respondent No.2 in the applications for
recall of the orders, which found acceptance to the
High Court, we find no good ground to interfere in
that part of the order on the facts of the case alleged
in the applications for recall. In other words, having
regard to the facts alleged and grounds taken
therein, the recall orders cannot be faulted with.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
are allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside
to the extent it dismissed Criminal Original Petition
Nos. 6231, 6322 and 6232 of 2018.
6
17. These three cases are now restored to their
original numbers. The High Court is requested to
decide these three cases on merits in accordance
with law.
18. Having formed an opinion to remand the case,
we have not considered it necessary to set out the
entire factual dispute and nor have gone into its
merit. The High Court will, therefore, decide these
cases on merits strictly in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any observations made in the
impugned order and in this order.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 02, 2019.
7