Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 547 (UTT)

MANOJ GAUTAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-02

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has handed over his own affidavit in the Court, which is taken on record. 2. Undisputedly, petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure being C-482 Nos. 222 of 2006 and 91 of 2006 challenging the charge-sheet and for quashing of the entire proceedings of criminal case were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.02.2007; thereafter, trial was commenced before the Trial Court; during the pendency of the trial, accused have preferred present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire proceedings of criminal case saying parties have settled their dispute amicably. Compounding Application No. 1237 of 2011 was also duly signed by Ranvir Sharma, Manager of Swami Bhumanand Dharmarth Netra Chikitsalaya, the informant and all the accused. Petition was taken up for hearing on 08.11.2011 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta. On 08.11.2011 following order was passed: “This compounding application has been filed with the signature of Ranvir Sharma, who was Manager of Swami Bhumanand Dharmarth Netra Chikitsalaya, at the time of lodging of First Information Report on dated 23.10.2004. Out of the four accused, two namely Manoj Gautam and Mahant Vedanand had also put their signature in this compounding deed. The chargesheet was submitted for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC pertaining to crime no. 426 of 2004 whereupon criminal State Case no. 3629 of 2005 was registered against the petitioners and they have to face trial. Now, Ranvir Sharma, who is present before this Court, discloses that he is no more Manager of the Swami Bhumanand Dharmarth Netra Chikitsalaya and has said good-bye to it six years ago and now, he is residing without having least touch with the Trust. So this way, he is not competent to file compromise.” 3. Thereafter, petition was listed before me on 08.10.2014 and it was stated by counsel for the accused/petitioners as well as Deputy Advocate General that since matter has been settled amicably as stated in a Compounding Application, therefore, proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6329 of 2005, State vs. Manoj Gautam and others for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar be quashed. 4. 4. It is important to mention herein that it was not pointed out before me on 08.10.2014 that earlier on 08.11.2011, Coordinate Bench of this Court has refused to accept the compounding application on the ground since informant Ranvir Sharma, who at the relevant time was the Manager of Swami Bhumanand Dharmarth Netra Chikitsalaya has left the job, therefore, he was having no authority to compound the offence. 5. Be that as it may, believing the statement made at Bar, compounding application was accepted and proceedings of criminal case no. 6329 of 2005 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar was quashed. 6. Having acquired knowledge about the quashing of the case, Swami Bhumanand Dharmarth Netra Chikitsalaya has filed present Recall Application No. 863 of 2014 seeking recall of the order dated 08.10.2014. Vide order dated 24.11.2014, Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to furnish his explanation/reply as to why order dated 08.11.2011 was not pointed out when compounding application was taken up for hearing on 08.10.2014. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed his own affidavit today in the Court. As per the affidavit, since matter was taken up after almost three years, therefore, order dated 08.11.2011 was not stored in his memory, therefore, he could not point out the order dated 08.11.2011. 7. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that in view of the order dated 08.11.2011, order under recall dated 08.10.2014 ought not to have been passed and it was passed without noticing the order dated 08.11.2011. Order dated 08.10.2014 may be recalled. 8. Although, in criminal proceedings, Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit review/recall of the judgment/order, however, if order is outcome of the fraud or is outcome of the patent error, apparent on the face of the record, it can be recalled to do complete justice. It is the settled position of law that fraud or patent error vitiate the order and the moment the fraud or patent error is noticed it should be undone by the Court for which this Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Not only this, Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure vests inherent power in this Court to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. 8. Mr. Not only this, Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure vests inherent power in this Court to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. 8. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since Compounding Application was moved by an unauthorized person, therefore, present petition may also be dismissed in view of the fact that earlier petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed. 10. In view of the above order dated 08.10.2014 is recalled. Compounding Application No. 1237 of 2011 is dismissed. MCC No. 863 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, present petition is dismissed. 11. Before parting the judgment, I would like to observe that every member of the Bar should be vigilant and careful while addressing the Court. This Court has tremendous trust on the members of the Bar, therefore, it is the pious duty of every member of the Bar, while addressing the Court to place all the correct and complete facts before the Court enabling the Court to do complete justice with the litigants.