The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi imposed Rs. 50K cost on a revisionist/accused of attempting to extract favorable orders by adopting foul means. The Court termed such 'malpractices' as back-stabbing the solemn Court proceedings. (Sunny Yadav And Another V. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)
The Bench observed, "Such type of practices is now a days rampant in the Court of law, where unscruplous litigant wants to extract some favourable orders by adopting any foul means. This type of malpractices could safely be termed on back-stabbing to the solemn Court proceedings, where fair play in the touch stone. The law courts are adviced beware such type of unscrupulous and unethical litigant and their advising counsels and should handle them with iron hands by imposing exemplary cost upon such a litigant."
Facts of the case
By means of the present criminal revision, revisionist has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Gorakhpur by which in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. revisionists Sunny Yadav and Devvrat @ Deobrat Chaudhari were summoned to face prosecution under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C.
The F.I.R. was registered by first informant Triloki Gaur against Monu, Devvrat and Sunny Yadav allegedly enticing away the minor girl of the informant. The girl in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly indicated that the revisionists committed alleged sexual assault upon her even though not relying upon the affidavit, the police personnel after playing partisan role have absorbed the revisionists from the charge sheet. However, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists were summoned to face trial.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset noted, "Under aforesaid consequences, I have also perused the testimony of PW2 Annapurna, in which she has clearly indicated that revisionist Sunny Yadav and Devvrat @ Deobrat Chaudhary have committed sexual assault with her and thus, in totality the present case is in perfect consonance by law laid-down by the Apex Court in the Case of Hardeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR (2014) 3 SCC 92. The order impugned does not warrant any interference in the exercise of power under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed."
The bench further noted that the Court is of the considered opinion that the subsequent proceedings are specifically barred by the Principles of Constructive Res Judicata and nor at all maintainable. Once the revisionists have already approached this Court by means of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking same prayer and on his own choice confined his submissions seeking limited protection of four weeks during which the revisionists were required to surrender and get themselves bailed out, but, instead of abiding by the direction of the Court vide order dated 07.01.2022, the revisionists again knocked the doors of this Court by filing the instant revision on 04.04.2022. This subsequent proceedings by way of filing the revision is nothing but coming to the Court in its second innings.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
