Vineet Handa vs State Of Haryana & Another on 3 April, 2012

[Cites 30, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vineet Handa vs State Of Haryana & Another on 3 April, 2012

The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.32 dated 06.02.2008 under Sections 420/406/409/415/468/471/34/120-B IPC, (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR No. 32'), registered at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon and also for quashing of the order dated 08.03.2011(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, vide which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, declined to accept the cancellation report dated 17.01.2009 filed by the investigating agency in FIR No.32, noted above.

The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be stayed on the basis of parity as the impugned order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.- M No.21409 of 2011 because the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, was a composite one vide which he declined to accept the cancellation Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 2 report.

During the course of hearing, when confronted with the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011, as to how the instant petition was maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of seeking immediate withdrawal of the present petition, tried to justify its filing for the second time contending that by way of instant petition, the petitioner is also seeking quashing of the FIR No.32 in addition to seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner, when asked by the Court that the petitioner was very much having this right to seek quashing of FIR No.32, when he filed his earlier quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc.M- 10651 of 2011 and it would amount that the petitioner consciously waived that right, learned counsel for the petitioner had again no answer.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with her able assistance have gone through the record of the case. After giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is yet another example of glaring misuse of process of Court. A well thought attempt has been made to overreach the Court because the petitioner thinks that he has means to do so. Since his earlier quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc-M No.10651 of 2011 had been withdrawn by him with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law, the filing of the present petition on behalf of the same petitioner speaks volumes about the intentions and demeanour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has no right to be heard on merits and Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 3 the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

The present case has a chequered history. Shorn of the detailed background, it would suffice to note only the basic facts necessary for resolving the issue involved in the instant petition. It is a matter of record that petitioner approached this Court earlier also by way of Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011 titled as "Vineet Handa versus State of Haryana and another" filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing the same impugned order dated 08.03.2011, vide which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, declined to accept the cancellation report dated 17.01.2009 filed by investigating agency in FIR No.32, registered at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon.

It is also a matter of record that when the above noted quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011 filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before this Court on 18.04.2011, the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy, available under law and following order was passed by this Court:

Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

After sometime, Criminal Misc.-M No.21409 of 2011 came to be filed by R.C.Berri and others under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.177 dated 08.06.2007 under Sections 406/409/420 IPC registered at Police Station DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon and also for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2011, vide which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, declined to accept the cancellation report dated 02.11.2008. Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 4 When this Criminal Misc.-M No.21409 of 2011 came up for hearing before an another Bench of this Court, the following order was passed on

18.07.2011:

Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with K.S. Nalwa and Mr.K.S.Negi, Advocate for the petitioners Criminal Misc.No.37302 of 2011 Application for exemption is allowed, as prayed for.

Main case:

Challenges is to the order dated March 8th, 2011 (Annexure P-23) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, whereby report for cancellation of case bearing First Information Report (for short FIR) No. 177 dated June 8th, 2007, under Section 406, 409, 420 etc. of Indian Penal Code, Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon was not accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that in this case, investigation was conducted by Satinder Kumar Gupta, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon(East) as was directed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated July 24th, 2007( Annexure P-11). In compliance of the said order, two detailed reports (Annexure P-9 and P-10) were filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon and on the basis of the same, report for cancellation of FIR was submitted.

Notice of motion for 08.11.2011.

Meanwhile, implementation of the Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 5 impugned order dated March 8th, 2011 (Annexure P-23) is stayed.

Since the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) was common in all the cases and implementation thereof has been stayed by this Court vide above said order dated 18.07.2011, the present petitioner was also getting benefit thereof. However, the material fact of above said order dated 18.04.2011, passed in Criminal Misc.M-10651 of 2011, filed by the present petitioner and getting the same dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy, having been brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 18.07.2011, reproduced above, was clarified vide order dated 13.03.2012. The order dated 13.03.2012, passed by this Court reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that these are as many as 19 cases. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has not received the copy of the petition in 13 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to supply the copy of the petition to the learned counsel for the complainant within a week from today.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that despite the dismissal of a similar quashing petition, filed at the hands of Vineet Handa, the Ex.Managing Director, M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd.L- 101, First Floor, Ambience Island, HN-8, Gurgaon, the learned trial Court is not proceeding with the matter because of the stay granted by this Court, vide order dated 18.07.2011, staying the Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 6 implementation of the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-23). Thus, he seeks clarification thereof qua Vineet Handa, Ex.Managing Director, M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the order passed by this Court on 18.07.2011 shall be operative only in these 19 petitions. However, it will not operate in favour of anybody else who is not a petitioner in these 19 petitions, including Vineet Handa, Ex.Managing Director, M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd.

Adjourned to 07.05.2012."

After passing of the above said order dated 13.03.2012, the petitioner filed the present petition taking a complete somersault as if he is seeking review of the order dated 18.04.2011.

It is very pertinent to note here that there is not even a whisper about the above said order dated 13.03.2012 passed by this Court throughout the instant petition, as if the petitioner was totally unaware about it. In this regard, it is relevant to note that in the impugned FIR No.32 (Annexuure P-1), accused No.1 is the Company named M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd. and petitioner is accused No.3 in the capacity of Managing Director. The petitioner, in the capacity of Managing Director and his other co-accused are either the Directors of the Company or officers/officials of the Company. The averments taken in para No.23 of the petition are relevant in this regard and the same read as under:

"That on the complaint of customers, FIRs under Sections 420, 406,409, 415, 468, 471, 34, 120-B IPC registered at PS DLF Phase II, Gurgaon were registered Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 7 against M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd., Mr.Ashok Mahindru, the petitioner, Mr.Vikas Sethi, Mr.Anand Mahindru, Mr.Atul Mahindru, Mr.Aseem Mahindru, Mr.Ram Lal , Mr.Saket Tewari, Mr.Rajeev Gupta, Mr.R.C.Berri, Mr.S.K.Berri, M/s Champak Textiles Pvt.Ltd., Mr.Anil Verma, Mr.Ravi Gupta, Mr.Jagdish Chawla and M/s Shivangini Mahindru. One such FIR No. 32 dated 06.02.2008 is being attached herewith as Annexure P-1 and petitioner is seeking the quashing of this FIR through this petition."

A combined reading of the above said material aspects of the matter would show that the first quashing petition, in point of time, seems to have been filed by the present petitioner, being the Managing Director of the Company, bearing Criminal Misc.M-No.10651 of 2011 but that was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law. Thereafter, as many as 19 quashing petitions came to be filed by other directors/officers of the company proceeding on a very clever device. I say so because no reference of order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011 titled as "Vineet Handa versus State of Haryana and another" reproduced above, has been made in the later petitions including Criminal Misc.-M No.21409 of 2011, except in one bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011.

The above noted quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc.-M No.21409 of 2011 has been filed for quashing FIR No.177 dated 08.06.2007, under Sections 406/409/420 IPC registered at Police Station DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, by none else but co-accused of the petitioner in FIR No.177 dated 08.06.2007, the present petitioner Vineet Handa being Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 8 accused No.3 in all these FIRs. Petitioners in Criminal Misc.-M No.21409 of 2011 are the co-accused of petitioner in FIR No.32 as well.

Surprisingly, another quashing petition has been filed to seek quashing of this very FIR No. 32 by the co-accused of the present petitioner. This quashing petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011 was filed by all other sixteen co-accused of the petitioner, total accused being seventeen including the company. The first petitioner is the company namely M/s OZO Media Estate Ltd. through its authorised representative Sheopal Yadav, Manager of the Company. This material fact came to the notice of this Court only from the matching slip pasted by the Registry on the reverse side of page No.3 of the paper book and also because the Court paper book of Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011 has been attached by the Registry with the instant petition. Para 34 of the present petition is relevant in this regard and the same read as under:-

"That no such or similar petition has been filed by the petitioner in this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India except the above referred Crl. Misc. No. 10651 of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn."

Careful perusal of Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011 would show that although the petitioners have given reference of above said Crl. Misc. No. M-10651 of 2011 in para 17 of the petition but they are conveniently silent about that in the relevant paras No. 20 and 21 thereof. Para 20 and 21 of Crl. Misc. No. 22933 of 2011 read as under:

"That petitioners No. 7, 10, 11 and 16 have filed CRM- M-No. 21409 of 2011 seeking quashing of FIR No. 177 dated 8.6.2007, the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 and further proceedings arising thereof. The said petition came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court on Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 9 18.7.2011 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue notice of motion and stay the implementation of the impugned order. The copy of the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court is annexed as Annexure P-31.

That the petitioners have not earlier filed any such or similar petition either in this Hon'ble Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India except CRM-M-21409 of 2011 and the same is pending for 08.11.2011 nor any such or similar is pending before the Court or Session or any other Court at the time of filing of the present petition."

Thus, it is clear that the present one is the third similar petition in a row in the case arising out of FIR No.32.

In this view of the matter, it does not appeal to reason at all that Directors/Officers of the same Company would not be aware about the above said order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.- M No.10651 of 2011 filed by the Managing Director of the company. It also does not appeal to reason that the Directors/Officers of the company would have filed as many as 19 quashing petitions without the knowledge and approval of their Managing Director. In either of the situations, the only irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner and his other co-accused who have filed as many as 19 quashing petitions before this Court have successfully misled this Court by intentionally withholding and concealing the very material fact of passing of order dated 18.4.2011 because of which the order dated 18.07.2011 came to be passed.

It is equally important to note that the instant petition, clearly amounts to a review petition. I say so because to entertain this petition will Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 10 be reviewing the order dated 18.4.2011 passed by this Court vide which earlier similar petition filed by this very petitioner challenging this very impugned order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-3), was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, at the instance of the petitioner, permitting him to avail alternate remedy, in accordance with law.

The statutory bar envisaged under Section 362 Cr.P.C. has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of State of Punjab versus Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) S.C. 126. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 26 of the judgment can be aptly followed and the same read as under:-

"There is no power of review with the Criminal court after judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment (See: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., 2000 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 650 : AIR Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 11 2001 SC 43; and Chhanni v. State of U.P., 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 753 : 2006 (2) Apex Criminal 666 :

AIR 2006 SC 3051).

Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P., 1994 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 77 : AIR 1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 657 : AIR 2001 SC 2145)."

As noted above, till the order dated 18.07.2011 was not clarified by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2012, the petitioner was conveniently silent. However, once the order dated 18.07.2011 staying the implementation of the impugned order dated 08.03.2011, appended at Annexure P-3 in the present petition, was clarified by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2012, reproduced above, the petitioner played another trick by filing the instant petition.

It does not appeal to reason that right hand would not know what the left hand is doing. I say so because the accused being the same persons in FIR No. 32 as well as in FIR No. 177, it is, prima facie, difficult to believe that the accused-petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-21409 of 2011 seeking quashing of FIR No. 177 dated 8.6.2007 and the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 would not be aware about the order dated 18.4.2011, passed by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-10651 of 2011, filed by the present petitioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn by him with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. Out of this bunch of 19 petitions, Crl. Misc. No. Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 12 M-21409 of 2011 came to be filed as the first petition wherein the above said stay order dated 18.7.2011 was passed because there was no mention in this petition about the Crl. Misc. No. M-10651 of 2011 and order dated 18.4.2011. A few days thereafter, all other 18 petitions came to be filed including Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011 seeking quashing of this very FIR No. 32 which were filed by the co-accused of the present petitioner in all these FIRs. The petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011 (M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd. and 15 others) were having the definite knowledge about the order dated 18.4.2011, passed by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-10651 of 2011 filed by the present petitioner, as they have stated this number and order in para 7 of their Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011.

It is not understandable as to why they did not mention the number of Crl. Misc. No. M-10651 of 2011 and order passed therein on 18.4.2011 in their other 18 petitions seeking quashing of different FIRs. Similarly, the present petitioner was fully aware about the filing of Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011 by his other 16 co-accused in FIR No. 32 as it is clear from page 4 of the paper book but surprisingly, he is conveniently keeping silent in the present petition about the above said order dated 13.3.2012, passed by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-21409 of 2011 clarifying initial stay order dated 18.7.2011.

In view of these circumstances, it has become crystal clear that the petitioner and his co-accused had been proceeding on a very clever devise in tacit connivance with each other to achieve their ulterior motive by filing repeated petitions and withholding or by mentioning earlier numbers of the petitions and orders passed therein to their own suitability so that they may mislead the Court to secure favourable orders. The petitioner and his co-accused had been proceeding on a calculated move making repeated and well thought efforts in furtherance of their common Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 13 malafide intention.

The critical analysis of the chain of events, in view of the peculiar fact situation of the present case, brings this Court to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner has been trying to misuse the process of law. This Court unhesitatingly hold that the petitioner had been proceeding further even by suppressing, withholding and concealing the material information from the notice of this Court while filing repeated quashing petitions so as to get favourable orders. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu versus Jagannath, AIR 94 SC 853, observed as under:-

"Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"

observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about 3 centuries ago."

It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment that "Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who come to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the legal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."

The petitioner has proceeded on a clever devise so as to overcome the hurdle of statutory bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C., noted above. This time, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 14 the instant petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 32, in addition to seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-3). In his earlier petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-10651 of 2011, the petitioner, as alleged, has sought only quashing of impugned order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-3) and not the quashing of FIR No. 32.

In this regard, Doctrine of Waiver as evolved and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applies with full force. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 of the judgment in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (supra), read as under:-

"Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert right. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Vide:

Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushihi Kaish, AIR 1935 PC 79; Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan & Anr., AIR 1959 SC. 149; Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G.Yelloji Rao & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1405; Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B.Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933; Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh & Anr. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors., (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 5; M/s Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2001 SC 2062; and Krishna Bahadur v. M/s. Purna Theatre & Ors., 2004 (4) S.C.T 137 : AIR Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 15 2004 SC 4282).

In the given circumstances of the present case, another question that falls for consideration of this Court is the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and object behind the inherent powers of this Court. The issue is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a long series of judgments, have consistently held that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only for achieving the objects specified in the section itself.

The consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been again reiterated in the recent judgment in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra). The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 31, 32 and 33 are apposite and read as under:

31."The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C.

and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision. If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where there are not such changed circumstances and the decision has to be Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 16 arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. (See: Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr. (1990) 2 SCC 437).

32. The inherent power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is saved only where an order has been passed by the criminal court which is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice or where the proceeding pending before a court, amounts to abuse of the process of court. Therefore, such powers can be exercised by the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal court or where a power is exercised by the court under the Cr.P.C. Inherent powers cannot be exercised assuming that the statute conferred an unfettered and arbitrary jurisdiction, nor can the High Court act at its whim or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases (Vide:

Kurukshetra University & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 2229; and State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129).

33. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party or where alternative remedy is available. Such powers cannot be exercised as against the express bar of the Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 17 law and engrafted in any other provision of the Cr.P.C. Such powers can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of court.

However, such expressions do not confer unlimited/unfettered jurisdiction on the High Court as the "ends of Justice" and "abuse of the process of the court"

have to be dealt with in accordance with law including the procedural law and not otherwise. Such powers can be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice as the courts have been conferred such inherent jurisdiction, in absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, or such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice as provided in the legal maxim "quando lex aliquid alique, concedit, concediture et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest".

However, the High Court has not been given nor does it possess any inherent power to make any order, which in the opinion of the court, could be in the interest of justice as the statutory provision is not intended to bypass the procedure prescribed. (Vide: Lalit Mohan Mondal & Ors. v. Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785 Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2006 (1) R.C.R. (criminal) 675 :

2006 (1) Apex Criminal 224 : AIR 2006 SC 915 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., 2006 (3) Apex Criminal 65 :

AIR 2006 SC 2872 Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M) 18 State of Uttranchal & Ors., 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 548 : 2007 (5) R.A.J. 451 : AIR 2008 SC 251 and Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 890 : 2008 (6) R.A.J. 293 : AIR 2008 SC 3077).

In the result, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (supra) as well as in Jagannath's case (supra), the instant petition is nothing but glaring abuse of the process of law at the hands of the petitioner and it must fail.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with cost of ` 20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand only). The petitioner is directed to deposit the costs within two months before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and the amount shall be credited in the account of the Haryana State Legal Services Authority. In case the cost is not deposited within time, the Secretary of Haryana State Legal Services Authority is directed to bring it to the notice of this Court.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 03.04.2012 neenu/Amit Whether to be reported? Yes/No

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court