The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of arguing the matter on merits, the need for caution in handling review applications, and the imposition of costs in certain circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. Present proceeding is filed for recalling the judgment and order dated 4.12.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 1404/2020. Request is made to restore the matter for hearing of both the sides and for fresh decision.

2. As the present proceeding was filed for virtually review of the previous decision, though on peculiar ground, this Court did not issue notice to other side and by order dated 11.1.2021 after hearing the learned counsel for applicant for some time, this Court passed the following order:-

“(1) Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant is expected to argue the main matter on merit. This Court expressed that the office committed mistake by not showing his name on the Board and this Court acted on the basis of office note, which was apparently wrong.

(2) Stand over to 15-01-2021. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel is expected to point out his grievance against office during his argument in the matter on merits.”

Thus, the matter was kept for giving hearing to the learned counsel for applicant as mentioned above. This Court wanted to give opportunity to counsel of present applicant who is informant in C.R. No. 251/2020 registered with Parli City Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. As such order was passed and on 15.1.2021, the advocate for informant was expected to show to the Court that due to the mistake of staff of the Court, he did not remain present and there are some grounds in the main matter and for recalling decision and so, the proceeding filed against informant for quashing of F.I.R. needs to be reheard. On 15.1.2021 instead of arguing the matter, the advocate for the informant produced on record one communication dated 14.1.2021 allegedly made by informant Dashrath Tandale. Along with this, he produced a photocopy of photograph of one foot showing that the foot was in bandage. He submitted that his client was indoor patient and so, adjournment may be given. He did not, however, submit that he wanted to withdraw from the proceeding.

3. The learned counsel Shri Salunke made other submissions which are quoted in the order dated 15.1.2021 and the Court had expressed that if he was not intending to argue the matter, there was no question of giving any relief to him. But, on 15.1.2021 following order came to be dictated:-

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD

T.V. NALAWADE, M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

Dashrath S/o Narayan Tandale - Appellant

Versus

Shridhar Keshavcharya Patwardhan and Others - Respondents

Criminal Application No. 1404, 2383 of 2020

Decided On : 15-01-2021

Advocate Appeared :

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. V.D. Salunke.

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. G.O. Wattamwar.

Per Court:

(1) Learned counsel for the applicant Shri V.D. Salunke, produced on record the communication of Dashrath Narayan Tandale dated 14.01.2021. It shows that his client informed him that he should not argue the matter. It appears that he has produced on record one photograph showing Bandge to his leg. Thus, photograph does not show that he is admitted in the hospital. Learned counsel Shri V.D. Salunke today submitted that the client has undergone minor operation and he is admitted in the hospital. There is no record of such admission. There are peculiar circumstances in the present matter which this Court will be quoting in the detail reasoned order. The learned counsel Shri V.D. Salunke submitted that he is unable to argue the matter as there is no affidavit of his client in reply. He submitted there is one more circumstance that one application was given by the original applicant for permission to produce the documents and those documents are also not with him and so he is unable to argue. Thus, on one hand his client has asked him not to argue the matter and on the other hand learned counsel Shri V.D. Salunke is making submissions of aforesaid nature.

(2) On 11.01.2021, in view of the grievance raised by the appl