Sunil Kumar Patni vs Sunil Kumar Sethi & 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 297 Mani

                                                                                  Item Nos. 26 & 27

LAIREN
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
MAYUM Digitally signed by
       LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJ INDRAJEET   SINGH
                                            AT IMPHAL
       Date: 2022.07.12
EET    15:58:04 +05'30'


SINGH                                 MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 6 of 2017
                                                  With
                                      MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 8 of 2019

              Sunil Kumar Patni
                                                                                      ....Applicant
                                                    - Versus -

              Sunil Kumar Sethi & 2 ors.
                                                                                   ...Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

12.07.2022

The 2nd respondent in Cril.Petn. No. 20 of 2017 filed MC (Cril.Petn.)

No. 6 of 2017 therein seeking its dismissal for non-compliance with the order

dated 21.07.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 566 of 2016. As a result thereof, the

petitioner in Cril.Petn. No. 20 of 2017 filed MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 8 of 2019 seeking

leave to file a recast petition and to condone the delay in the filing of the same.

Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the applicant in

MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 6 of 2017 and the contesting respondent in MC(Cril.Petn.)

No. 8 of 2019; and Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel for the applicant in

MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 8 of 2019 and the contesting respondent in MC(Cril.Petn.)

No. 6 of 2017.

The Petitioner in Cril.Petn. No. 20 of 2017 had filed W.P. (C) No. 566

of 2016 before this Court to quash F.I.R. No. 97(7) 2016 on the file of City Police

Station, Imphal, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC. However, by order dated 21.07.2017, a Ld. Judge of this Court

noted the submission of both sides that the judgment and order dated

07.07.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 554 of 2016 would have application and

disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the same should be

converted into a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Ld. Judge directed that

the needful shall be done by the Registry.

Significantly, in the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2017 passed in

W.P. (C) No. 554 of 2016, the very same Ld. Judge had permitted conversion

of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution into a petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C but, in that case, the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner

was directed to file a recast petition within a time frame. No such direction was

however passed in W.P. (C) No. 566 of 2016 and it was the Registry, on the

other hand, that was directed to do the needful. In that view of the matter, the

contention of Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel, that Cril.Petn. No. 20 of 2017 is

liable to be dismissed, as no recast petition was filed, cannot be accepted. There

was no such direction in this case as was there in the other writ petition. In

consequence, MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 6 of 2017 is without merit and is accordingly

dismissed.

In the light of the said finding, MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 8 of 2019 filed by

the petitioner in Cril.Petn. No. 20 of 2017, seeking leave to file a recast petition

and to condone the delay in doing so, is rendered redundant and is also

dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Indrajeet