Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Murala. Gopinadh, vs Honble Ii Jfmc Court on 6 September, 2022

                                            1
                                                                                           CMR, J.
                                                                            WPMP No.15513 of 2015
                                                                            in W.P.No.39276 of 2014




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                      W.P.M.P. No.15513 of 2015
                                    in
                     Writ Petition No.39276 of 2014

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks review of the order, dated 08.12.2014,

of the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, passed in

W.P.No.39276 of 2014.

2) Heard the petitioner, party-in-person and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

3) The petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction

of the High Court seeking the following reliefs:

"For the reasons sworn in accompanying affidavit, in the expedience of administration of justice it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for judicial review preventing usurpations and double jeopardy:

1. Grant writ of Certiorari on Crl.M.P.2307 of 2011 in C.C. No.133 of 2010 and C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the record of Hon'ble II JFMC Court at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, quashing all the proceedings after 22-11-2011 and send to Hon'ble AJFMC Court at Nuzvid to try along with CF No.3633 of 2012 prohibiting 'the

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

State' taking precedence of this Court order, dated 22-11-2011, in Crl.P.Nos.8157 and 8158 of 2011;

2. Grant writ of Certiorari pertaining to the false letters submitted through the client in M.C.No.29 of 2010 knowing it to be false by tampering and trafficking judicial records and quash the proceedings, dated 18-01-2012 in M.C.No.29 of 2010 on the record of Hon'ble Family Court-cum-ASD Court prohibiting S.N. Murthy from S. G.Ramarao & Associates and Other Advocates taking precedence of the said false documents in any court;

3. Prayed to direct Hon'ble AJFMC Court at Krishna Dt. for speedy trial in CF No.3633 of 2012;

4. Grant exemption of appearance in C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the record of Hon'ble II JFMC Court at Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dt. till the disposal of this main WP.../2012 pending in this Hon'ble Court;

5. Earlier Hon'ble Family Court rejected my visiting rights as I am making wild allegations against the advocate on record. Now that the truth is surfaced, direct the Hon'ble Family Court at Rajahmundry to dispose and enforce the visiting rights petition in I.A.No.1344 of 2011 in O.P.No.212 of 2010 with strict co-parenting schedule in the interest of kids future as paramount consideration on urgent priority basis;

6. Grant other orders exercising its power under Article 227 in expedient of justice for other reasons enclosed in memorandum.

i. No S.H.O. can refuse to register the cognizable information as a complaint u/s.254(1) Cr. P.C. without endorsement of reason for such refusal;

ii. No S.H.O. can refer the said complaint to be false without filing complaint under Section 182 of I.P.C.;

iii. If Informant approaches Superintendent of Police, who finds that refusal of registration of F.I.R. by Officer-in-Charge of the police station was unjust or for reasons other than valid, and where he directs for investigation, he shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against SHO/Officer-in-Charge of police station;

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

iv. No court can refer private complaint under Sections 190(1)(a) r/w.156(3) without compliance to Section 154(1) of Criminal Procedure Code and without referr5ing the same to S.P./C.P. of the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned SHO;

v. No Court can dispose of the said complaint to be false without filing complaint under Section 211 of I.P.C.;

vi. No Prosecutor can act as post box to police but assist administration of justice to get guilty convicted;

vii. No Criminal Petitions can be filed in this Hon'ble Court by Public Prosecutor representing 'the State' in this Court without co- ordination with the state of Director of Prosecution;

viii. No Court can frame charges under Sec.246(1) without evidence u/s.244(1) of Cr.P.C. in spite of ignorance of the accused to file discharge petition upon appearance u/s.245 Cr.P.C.;

ix. Besides above, non-compliance of above directions of this Court shall also be treated to be a deliberate defiance by the concerned authorities above mentioned constituting contempt of this Court and may be taken up before this Court having jurisdiction in the matter, whenever it is brought to the notice of this Court;

7. Pass any other writ at costs or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in interest of justice and equity."

Thus, the petitioner has sought for manifold reliefs in the above

Writ Petition.

4) For the sake of brevity, in order to dispose of this review

petition, the substance of the reliefs claimed by the Writ Petitioner

may be stated as follows:

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

(a) The petitioner states that there is a tampering and

trafficking of judicial records relating to M.C.No.29 of 2010 before

the Family Court, Rajahmundry and seeks action to be taken

against the Advocate, against whom he made certain allegations.

He also seeks certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court to call for

records from the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and to quash

judicial proceedings issued by the said Court on 22.11.2011 and

to send the records of the case to the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District. He further

seeks the relief of exemption from appearance before the Court at

Rajahmundry and also for speedy trial in C.F.No.3633 of 2012

pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District etc.

5) After hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person, the

common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, has dismissed the

said petition, as per order dated 08.12.2014.

6) While dismissing the said Writ Petition, the common High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

the State of Andhra Pradesh, after calling for report from the

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court, held that the record is

placed before the Chief Justice, which inter alia, contains the

complaint petition, dated 19.03.2012 sent by the party-in-person

making allegations against the advocate with regard to tampering

and trafficking of judicial records in M.C.No.29 of 2010. The

Hon'ble the then Chief Justice of the High Court, after examining

the matter on administrate side, directed on 28.08.2012 that the

party-in-person be advised to take appropriate steps, in

accordance with law, before the appropriate forum. As regards the

complaint submitted by him alleging that a false report is made by

the same advocate against him earlier stating that he gave false

information to the Station House Officer of Nuzvid, it is held in the

order that the said complaint was also examined on the

administrative side and the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice, by

order dated 03.07.2013, directed that no further action need be

taken on the said complaint and thereby held that the aforesaid

complaints were accordingly disposed of on administrative side.

7) Ultimately, the common High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh, at para.6 of the order, which is sought to be reviewed in

this petition, held as follows:

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

"6. The relief sought for by the party-in-person, as briefly narrated above in the opening paragraph of this order, shows that all the said reliefs are relating to the judicial proceedings of the learned II Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajahmundry and if the party-in-person has any grievance against any of the orders passed or any proceedings taken, he could have as well availed the appropriate remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code by invoking the revisional jurisdiction or approaching this Court seeking quashing of the said proceedings. Bypassing the said remedies, however, the party-in-person has filed the present writ petition. Obviously, the office has not numbered the writ petition on account of the nature of reliefs sought for and it coming up at SR stage. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is well settled, is required to be invoked only in the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy and since the petitioner has adequate efficacious alternative remedy under Cr.P.C, in my view, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not deserve to be invoked. Further, the reliefs sought are also inconsistent and suffer from mis-joinder of several causes of action."

8) Having held so, the common High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh, held that it is not inclined to entertain the writ petition

and thereby granted liberty to the petitioner, who appeared in

person, to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with

Cr.P.C. if he still feels aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the

Court below and thereby dismissed the Writ Petition.

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

9) After perusing the order, which is sought to be reviewed, as

discussed supra, this Court absolutely finds no patent illegality on

the face of it to review the same.

10) Further, it is well-settled law that review of the earlier order

passed by the Court is maintainable only on very limited grounds.

Legal position in this regard is not res-integra and the same has

been well-settled. Considering all the earlier precedents rendered

on the scope of review of an order that was earlier passed in a Writ

Petition, the Division Benches of the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and the common High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh, have elaborately discussed the principles relating to

review of an order passed in a Writ Petition in T.D. Dayal v.

Madupu Harinarayana1 and Mohammadiya Educational

Society v. Union of India2.

11) As per the law enunciated in the aforesaid cases and as per

the principles culled out from the above observations made by the

Division Benches, a review petition can be maintained only on the

following grounds:

2013 (6) ALD 734 = 2013 (6) ALT 681

Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, dated 01.09.2016, passed in WPMP (SR) No.125389 of 2016 in WP No.31371 of 2015 and WAMP (SR) No.126570 of 2016 in W.A.No.1101 of 2015.

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

(1) A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility". (2) When a new or important matter or evidence is discovered which was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review at the time of hearing the case earlier or which could not be produced by him when the order was made. (3) The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances, of a substantial and compelling character, make it necessary to do so. (4) Review is not a rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with the appellate power which enables the appellate Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court.

(5) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

(6) An error which is not self-evident, and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying exercise of the power of review.

(7) There is a clear distinction between an "erroneous decision" and "an error apparent on the face of the record". While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. So, the earlier order cannot be reviewed unless the Court is satisfied that material error,

CMR, J.

WPMP No.15513 of 2015 in W.P.No.39276 of 2014

manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (8) If the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, in the sense that it is evident on a mere look at the record without a long-drawn process of reasoning, a review application is maintainable. If there is a serious irregularity in the proceeding, such as violation of the principles of natural justice, a review application can be entertained.

12) The present review sought by the petitioner is not falling

within the purview of the law laid down in the above judgments or

within the above parameters laid down by the Division Benches of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the common High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

the State of Andhra Pradesh, to maintain a review of the earlier

order passed in a Writ Petition.

13) Following the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments

of the Division Benches, another Division Bench of this Court in

I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004, as per order, dated

08.11.2019, also held that review can be entertained only on very

limited grounds as per the law enunciated as discussed supra.