Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 34 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Mahendra & Ors. ...Appellants
RESPONDENT:
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. ...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2893 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous
Applications. The High Court took exception to the fact that two petitions
were filed in respect of the same impugned order. According to the High
Court the appellants had concealed the fact that the second petition had been
filed while the first petition was pending consideration.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Criminal Misc. Application No.4279 of 1998 was filed by the
appellants before the Allahabad High Court. After bifurcation of the State
the said case was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court and was re-
numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.953 of 2001. It appears that
there was another petition filed which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No. 4435 of 1998 and the same was re-numbered as Criminal
Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001. The High Court was of the view that
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 corresponding to Criminal
Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 was filed earlier and when the appellants
failed to get an order of stay they filed the second petition suppressing the
fact that one earlier petition was pending. In the second petition the
appellants got an order of stay. This according to the High Court was a
depreciable practice.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the confusion arose
because the latter petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998
was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier
petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4279 of 1998 was re-numbered
as Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001. It is pointed out that the
said petition was filed on 6.10.1998 and there was an interim order passed in
the said case. It is submitted that by mistake the advocate’s clerk filed exact
copy of the earlier petition which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No. 4435 of 1998. The same was filed at a latter date. In this
background it was submitted that there was no suppression and in fact there
was no reason to mislead the Hon’ble Court.
Per contra learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellants
have not explained satisfactorily as to under what circumstances two similar
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
applications were filed.
We find that in fact the confusion arose because the petition filed later
was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 while the
petition filed earlier, in which the order of stay granted on 23.12.1998, was
re-numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the filing of the
second application was on account of confusion and the same in fact was not
pressed.
In the peculiar circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the
filing of the second application was on account of a bona fide mistake and
the confusion arose because of the fact that the second criminal application
was renumbered as Crl. Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier
petition was re-numbered as 953 of 2001. In the aforesaid background we
set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court
for fresh consideration on merits. Since the learned counsel for the appellant
has stated that Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 was not
pressed, the same need not be considered by the High Court.
Before we part with the case, it has to be noted that several instances
have come to our notice that several petitions of similar nature are being
filed without disclosing that earlier a petition had been filed. It would be
therefore appropriate for the High Courts to make provision in the relevant
Rules that in every petition it shall be clearly stated as to whether any earlier
petition had been filed and/or is pending in respect of the same cause of
action. It shall also be indicated as to what was the result of the earlier
petition. If this procedure is followed, the confusion of the kind which has
surfaced in this case can be ruled out.
The appeal is disposed of.