Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M.Deshpande, Amit B.Borkar, JJ.
Jija Eknathrao Ghurde - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Application (Appeal) No. 1687 of 2018 In Criminal Application (Appeal) No. 789 of 2017 (Decided)
Decided On : 04-10-2021
R.L. Khapre, Advocate, V.A. Thakre, Advocate, R.R. Vyas, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and not suppressing material facts, as it affects the exercise of discretionary relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Recalling of Judgment - Criminal Application - Section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the discretionary relief it provides. It highlighted the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and not suppressing material facts. The court emphasized that the suppression of vital facts affected the jurisdiction of the court, leading to the recall of the judgment and restoration of the application for decision on its own merits.
Fact of the Case:
The widow of the deceased filed a report alleging abetment of suicide by the non-applicants. The non-applicants challenged the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court had earlier quashed the FIR, but the applicant filed an application for recalling the judgment, citing non-disclosure of the charge-sheet and committal of the case to the Court of Sessions by the non-applicants during the pendency of the previous application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-applicants had suppressed material facts, affecting the jurisdiction of the court. As a result, the judgment quashing the FIR was recalled, and the application was restored for decision on its own merits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-disclosure of the charge-sheet and committal of the case to the Court of Sessions by the non-applicants during the pendency of the previous application, and the impact of this suppression of material facts on the jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and not suppressing material facts, as it affects the exercise of discretionary relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The suppression of vital facts affected the jurisdiction of the court, leading to the recall of the judgment and restoration of the application for decision on its own merits.
Final Decision: The judgment quashing the FIR was recalled, and the application was restored for decision on its own merits. The application for recalling the judgment was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGMENT
V.M. Deshpande, J. - RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant in this application, Shri V.A. Thakre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State and Mr. R.R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the non-applicants No.2 to 7 in this application.
3. This application is filed for recalling of judgment and order of the Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017 dated 04/04/2018 by praying that this Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. By judgment dated 04/04/2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017 filed on behalf of the present non-applicants No.2 to 7 and thereby quashed the First Information Report bearing No. 239/2017 registered with Police Station Murtizapur (City), District Akola for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Few facts will be necessary for deciding this application. Present applicant is the widow of Eknathrao Ghurde, who committed suicide by hanging himself under bridge. The applicant herein lodged a report that deceased was abated by the acts on the part of the non-applicants No.2 to 7 herein. In the First Information Report she did state that a suicide note was left behind by the deceased. After the crime was registered against the non-applicants No.2 to 7 they approached before this Court, challenging the registration of First Information Report against them. They approached before this Court by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings initiated by them were registered as Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017. It would be useful to reproduce herein-under the prayer clauses made by the non-applicants No.2 to 7 in the application and those are reproduced below :
i. Call for the record of FIR No. 239/2017 dated 19/07/2017 registered with non-applicant No.1, Murtizapur City, Police Station, for commission of offences punishable under section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
ii. Upon perusal of same, quash and set aside FIR No. 239/2017 dated 19/07/2017 registered with non-applicant No.1, Murtizapur City, Police Station, for commission of offences punishable under section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code, on such terms and conditions and in the interest of justice.
iii. During pendency of instant application, stay the investigation of FIR No. 239/2017 dated 19/07/2017 registered with non-applicant No.1, Murtizapur City, Police Station, for commission of offences punishable under section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
iv. Grand ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii) above.
v. Grand any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
vi. Allow the instant application.
6. Though one of the prayers was made by them to stay the investigation of FIR No.239/2017 it appears that the stay to the ongoing investigation was not granted by this Court at any point of time.
7. In view of the notices issued the present applicant appeared and she was represented by her Advocate Shri P.S. Patil. From the record it appears that the reply on behalf of the present applicant was not filed. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for and on behalf of the Investigating Officer has filed a detailed reply opposing the reliefs prayed by the non-applicants No.2 to 7 for quashing of the FIR.
8. From record it appears that Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017 was taken up for hearing on 04/04/2018 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. On the same day, the non-applicants herein were represented by their Advocate. The State was also represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, it appears that the applicant herein remained to be represented inasmuch as her Advocate Shri P.S. Patil was absent. On 04/04/2018, after hearing
