Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaushalya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 25 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 18215 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
KAUSHALYA BAI W/O MUNNA LAL MISHRA, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
KHANDURI, PS. BIJURI, DISTT. ANUPPUR, M.P
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY PAL SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEP. VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE POLICE
HEAD QUARTER S DISTT. ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. TOWN INSPECTOR POLICE STATION BIJURI
DISTT. ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.K.SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking application of the
judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) and another [(2020) 5 SCC 1], decided on 29.01.2023, on the
ground that no condition could have been imposed while granting anticipatory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 29-09-2023
17:23:58
bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the present case are that in M.Cr.C.No.3171/2014,
originating out of Case Crime No.514/2011, Police Chowki Ramnagar, Police
Station Bijuri, District Anuppur, for offence under Sections 181, 197, 198, 200,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 IPC, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail for a
period of sixty days for the conditions mentioned therein and liberty was
granted to the petitioner to move an application for regular bail before the
competent Court.
3. While passing order dated 01.04.2014, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
had observed that, that was second application for anticipatory bail. Earlier
M.Cr.C.No.2921/2012 was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2012.
4. It is an admitted fact that thereafter, petitioner had filed
M.Cr.C.No.17304/2015. In this case, vide order dated 15.10.2015, time was
granted to the counsel for the applicant to remove the default and it was
directed that if the default was not removed within the stipulated period, the
matter shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference
to the Court.
5. Vide order dated 16.11.2015, Principal Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the
M.Cr.C.No.17304/2015, on account of peremptory order dated 15.10.2015.
6. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.Cr.C.No.11228/2015, which came to be
decided vide order dated 16.08.2015. Petitioner had sought extension of time
by filing an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Coordinate Bench denied
that permission on the ground that extension of time application could have
been moved before expiry of period mentioned in the order dated 01.04.2014,
but since application was moved after more than one year had passed,
therefore, no extension was granted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 29-09-2023
17:23:58
7. Petitioner had moved another application M.Cr.C.No.6412/2016, which
came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court vide order
dated 29.04.2016, refusing to entertain the application and observing that it
would amount to revision of earlier order which is not permissible. Thereafter,
petitioner was still not dissuaded from filing repeated applications and in misuse
of the process, filed M.Cr.C.No.1560/2016, which came to be dismissed vide
order dated 10.01.2017.
8. Thus, after series of dismissal of subsequent applications, petitioner was
bold enough to file another application being M.Cr.C.No.16909/2017, which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2018.
9. Petitioner did not stop here and in the meanwhile, another application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.5304/2014 came to
be dismissed by another Bench of this High Court vide order dated 12.08.2016,
whereby, petitioner had sought quashment of the FIR and the proceedings of
Crime No.424/2011, registered at Police Station Bijuri, District Anuppur.
10. An important and interesting facet is that all through petitioner was
represented by almost same set of lawyers except for one or two occasions.
11. Again, petitioner filed present writ petition in which a Coordinate Bench
vide order dated 31.03.2021 raised a specific ground that whether the orders of
the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal (supra) will have prospective
application or retrospective application when time was sought by the petitioner's
counsel. Thereafter, without adverting to the aspect which was raised by a
Coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.03.2021, petitioner suppressing this
aspect, obtained interim protection vide order dated 26.06.2021, which was
continued from time to time on various occasions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 29-09-2023
17:23:58
12. Today, the issue is two fold, whether the judgment in case of Sushila
Aggarw al (supra) has retrospective application or prospective in nature.
Another aspect is that any indulgence as has been shown by a Coordinate
Bench vide order dated 26.06.2021, amounts to review of the earlier orders
referred to above passed by different Benches of the High Court refusing to
show indulgence in the matter. It is true that review is not permissible in terms
of provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C ., as has been discussed by a
Coordinate Bench vide order dated 29.04.2016 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.6412/2016.
13. After dismissal of application for extension of time, subsequent
application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., being not maintainable and also
dismissal of application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR,
if any indulgence is shown, then it will amount to review. In fact, in case of
Sushila Aggarwal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that if there are
specific facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for the Court to
impose any appropriate condition (including fixed nature of a relief, or its being
tight to an event) etc.
14. In view of such facts that when trial has commenced and there was a
condition imposed by the original Court granting anticipatory bail vide order
dated 01.04.2014, no indulgence can be shown in the matter of the petitioner
and she is advised to surrender before the trial Court and seek indulgence in that
matter.
15. In view of such facts, as petitioner has failed to make out a case that
judgment in case of Sushila Aggarwal (supra) has retrospective application,
and it will have an effect of wiping out several judgments/orders passed by
various Benches of this High Court in the matter of the petitioner itself and there
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 29-09-2023
17:23:58
is any provision to review the orders even in the light of the judgment of
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal (supra), petition being devoid of merits is
hereby dismissed.
16. Petitioner to bear costs of this litigation which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services
Committee, within thirty days from today.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 29-09-2023
17:23:58
