Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mithlesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2016
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, N.V. Ramana
SLP(C)....CC No.16057/16 1
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s).
16057/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07/07/2014
in WPC No.1618/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
MITHLESH KUMAR SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent(s)
I.A.3/2016(With c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
Date : 05/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Anish Kr.Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Avdhesh Kr.Singh, Adv.
Mr.R.K.Rajwanshi, Adv.
Mr.Navneet Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR(NP)
For Respondent(s)
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The High Court recorded the following observations in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the impugned order:
“5. We have otherwise also enquried from the senior counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner is targeting the respondent no.7 for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the last nearly three years by filing one SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2016.12.06 17:04:55 TLT proceeding after another and what is the source Reason: of knowledge and information of the petitioner relating to affairs qua which commission of offences is alleged.SLP(C)....CC No.16057/16 2
6. No plausible answer has been forthcoming.
We suspect the petition to be motivated and not in public interest and are not inclined to entertain the same on this ground also.
7. Even otherwise it has been held in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not encourage rushing to the Court against non registration of FIRs, the remedy where against is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officers referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. and if despite that the grievance persists, to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if still dissatisfied, to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
8. We have enquired from the senior counsel that why the petitioner in the last three years has not taken either of the aforesaid measures.
9. Again no response is forthcoming.”
4. Even during the course of hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any clear material affirming the accusation being levelled by the petitioner. We are of the view, that the petitioner has misused the jurisdiction of this Court and in spite of being warned by the High Court, the petitioner has approached this Court. We are satisfied, that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. The same is accordingly dismissed with cost, which is quantified as Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh). The aforesaid cost shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Welfare Trust, within four weeks from today.
5. In case the said cost is not deposited by the petitioner within the time stipulated hereinabove, the Registry is directed to re-list the matter for enforcement of cost.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR