IMPORTANT POINT
Review petition filed mala fide and on untenable grounds is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

JUDGMENT :

The instant review petition has been filed for review of our order dated 8th August, 2013 dismissing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5911 of 2013 (Kishore Samrite vs. State of M.P.), in limine. The aforesaid special leave petition was filed challenging the order dated 6th May, 2013 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010 whereby the petitioner’s prayer for stay of conviction under Section 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was rejected. Review of the Order has been sought for mainly on the following grounds:

“ii. BECAUSE as it has been stated herein above on 27.07.2012 the relevant order was passed for listing the another SLP of the Petitioner before a Bench of which Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad was not a member and again on 06.08.2013 similar order was passed in the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner i.e. just 2 days prior to the passing of the impugned order in the present case and considering the said orders passed the present SLP filed by the Petitioner ought not to have been heard on 08.08.2013 by the Bench since Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad was a member of the said Bench and instead the judicial norm and propriety required that the matter should have been listed before another Bench in order to maintain the consistency and the propriety and also in the interest of justice.

iii. BECAUSE it is further relevant to point out that Shri Ardendumauli Kr. Prasad, Advocate was engaged by the Petitioner herein in 2005 for filing the Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court and the said petition was filed by his counsel through Shri Kishan Datta, Advocate On Record and the same was duly argued by his above noted counsel and hence considering this aspect also the petition should not have been heard by the Bench on 08.08.2013 and hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the SLP deserves to be heard afresh.

iv. BECAUSE it would be more appropriate and proper and also in order to maintain the dignity of this Hon’ble Court if the present Review Petition is allowed and the SLP is heard afresh.”

2. The petitioner has stated that Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2817 of 2011 (Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) was listed on 27.07.2012 and on that date this Court passed the following order:

“List before a Bench of which Hon’ble Mr. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad is not a member.”

3. Aforesaid special leave petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011. Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner, an Ex. Member of Legislative Assembly, acting as next friend, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for production of a young girl of 22 years and her parents alleging that Shri Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament, had confined them in illegal detention.

4. He had also sworn an affidavit in support of the writ petition. It contained wild allegations/insinuations against Shri Rahul Gandhi and questioned the virtue and modesty of the young girl of 22 years. While dismissing the Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011, Allahabad High Court imposed an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh only) on the petitioner.

5. This Court granted leave and ultimately dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2012 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2817 of 2011, by judgment dated 18th October, 2012 (Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 398). While doing so, the Court observed as follows:

“61.1 Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011 was based upon falsehoods, was an abuse of process of court and was driven by malice and political vendetta. Thus, while dismissing this petition, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the next friend, costs being payable to Respondent 6.”

6. Petitioner file