IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF th ON THE 9 OF MAY, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 1150 of 2022 GANESH RAM VISHWAKARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Abhishek Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.

Ms. Manjit P.S. Chuckal - Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

ORDER Per: Justice Vinay Saraf Present review petition has been filed seeking recall of the order dated

30.09.2022 passed in WP No. 19486 of 2022, whereby the writ petition seeking the relief of compensation was dismissed as the petitioner is yet to undergo the remaining sentence of 4 years in lieu of default of fine amount. The reliefs which was claimed in the writ petition are as follows :

(i) May kindly be pleased to call the entire record for kind perusal and satisfaction of the Hon'ble Court.

(ii) To direct the administration of High Court of M.P. to make an enquiry and award the compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs against the respondents jointly or severally.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD

2. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court has taken suo moto cognizance to examine the maintainability of second petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC bearing registration No. MCrC 23792 of 2022 which was filed seeking relief for releasing the petitioner from jail on the ground that he has completed the jail sentence. After consideration, this Court has recalled the order dated 29.07.2022 passed in MCrC No. 23792 of 2022 (Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma vs State of M.P.).

3. It is argued that the earlier order passed in MCrC No. 5513 of 2022 (Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma vs State of M.P.) dated 10.03.2022 was passed by the Hon'ble Judge, who was one of the members of the Division Bench, therefore, he could not have heard the matter. Even otherwise, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after taking suo moto cognizance in the matter to enable him to place his arguments before the Court and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the order passed in MCrC No. 23792 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022 was recalled. Petitioner's counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of W.B. v. Shivananda Pathak, (1998) 5 SCC 513 and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 as well as that of this Court in the case of Parth Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. v. State Appellate Forum, (2005) 1 MP LJ 506, with reference to para 12.

4. It is argued that the report submitted by the authorities before the Court is virtually in favour of the petitioner and he has completed the jail sentence; however, the Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect properly and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD has passed the impugned order.

5. Per contra, counsels appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the petitioner's contention and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that the petitioner is virtually trying to argue the matter on merits. The petitioner's counsel himself was the counsel in the earlier petitions being MCrC No. 5513 of 2022 and MCrC No. 23792 of 2022, therefore, he was aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner's counsel argued the matter at length and during the course of arguments, suo moto cognizance was taken by the Court on the ground of maintainability of the subsequent petition (MCrC No. 23792 of 2022) filed under Section 482 of CrPC for the same relief when the earlier petition (MCrC No. 5513 of 2022) filed under Section 482 of CrPC was dismissed on merits. Even otherwise, the writ petition being WP No. 19486 of 2022 was filed seeking compensation and the same was not arising out of the order passed in