NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR vs. MANMOHAN ATTAVAR (D) THR LRS

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2021 IN Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020 Neelam Manmohan Attavar …Applicant/Petitioner Versus Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs. …Respondent(s) O R D E R M.R. SHAH, J. 1. The   present   application   has   been   preferred   by   the applicant/petitioner   herein   to   recall   the   order   passed   by   this Court dated 03.09.2020 passed in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020. 2. We have heard the applicant­petitioner in person at length. When we pointed out to the applicant­petitioner in person that as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2021.02.05 15:05:30 IST Reason: earlier another application filed by her for the very same relief as 1 in   the   present   application   was   dismissed   by   this   Court,   the second application for the same relief could not be maintainable, the applicant­petitioner in person submitted that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya   Y   Chandrachud,   J.)   should   recuse   himself   from hearing   the   present   application.     We   see   no   valid   and   good ground for recusal by one of us.  Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal.  A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking   a   Bench   of   its   choice.     Therefore,   the   prayer   of   the applicant­petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,   J.)     should   recuse   from   hearing   the   present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected. 3. Now   so   far   as   the   present   application   on   merits   is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier one   other   application   was   filed   by   the   applicant­petitioner   in person for the very relief, i.e., to recall order dated 03.09.2020 passed by this Court in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020 and   the   same   came   to   be   lodged   by   the   Registrar   and   the application   challenging   the   order   of   the   Registrar   lodging   the 2 application   for   recall   of   the   order   dated   03.09.2020   was dismissed.   That thereafter, once again, the applicant­petitioner in person has preferred the present application for the very relief, i.e., for recalling of order dated 03.09.2020 which shall not be maintainable.   Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that order   dated   03.09.2020   was   pronounced   after   hearing   the applicant.   As observed hereinabove, earlier IA for recalling of order dated 03.09.2020 was dismissed and at that time also the applicant­petitioner in person was also heard. 4. In view of the above, the present application also deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.   It is observed that the   Registry   shall   not   accept   any   further   miscellaneous application on the subject matter of order dated 03.09.2020 or the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in IA No. 101770 of 2020 or in the present order. ………………………………………J.        [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] New Delhi; ………………………………………J. February 05, 2021. [M.R. Shah] 3