Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Phool Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 10 March, 2014
¦y
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRL. M.P. NO. 25683 OF 2013
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO. of 2014
Phool Chandra & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
O R D ER
1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2013
passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad while dealing
with the application for early hearing in Criminal Appeal No. 4309
of 2012.
2. The petitioners stood convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 363/366/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) in Sessions Trial No. 879
of 2010 (State of U.P. v. Phool Chandra & Anr.) arising out of
Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, Police Station Utraon, District
Allahabad in which FIR was lodged on 8.2.2009 by one Bhola Nath
alleging that his daughter Kumari Manita aged 14 years, student
of class 10th had gone to school on 6.2.2009 but did not return.
He also expressed suspicion that his neighbour Sharda Prasad Gupta
might be involved in the incident. In pursuance of the aforesaid
complaint, investigation ensued and the victim Manita was
recovered by the police on 12.2.2009. After completing the
investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioners
and some other persons under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC and
after conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated
8.10.2012, the petitioners stood convicted under Sections
363/366/506 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7, 8 and
3 years respectively, had been imposed alongwith fines and further
sentence in case of default in making payment. Some of the co-
accused who also faced the trial were acquitted.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4309
of 2012 before the High Court and vide order dated 20.11.2012 they
had been enlarged on bail.
4. The petitioners moved an application for early hearing of the
Criminal Appeal wherein the Court was pleased to pass the
following order:
"The case is released.
Put up this case before appropriate Bench."
Hence this petition.
5. This matter was heard on 17.12.2013, however, Shri Pardeep
Kumar Yadav who argued the case, could not satisfy the court
regarding the maintainability of the petition against the impugned
order. Thus, we requested him to call the Advocate-on-Record in
the second round. Shri Ajit Kumar Pande, learned Advocate-on-
Record, appeared, argued and thereafter sought time as he could
not satisfy the court regarding the maintainability of the
petition, nor he could explain what was the grave urgency for
seeking early hearing of the criminal appeal when the petitioners
had been enlarged on bail, and particularly, when many people are
waiting in the jail and their cases are not being heard by the
Allahabad High Court for 20-30 years. He sought time to satisfy
the court regarding its maintainability and, hence, the matter had
been adjourned several times.
6. This petition has been filed with a delay of 108 days. Though,
during this period, had the petitioners made any attempt, their
application for early hearing could have been heard by the
appropriate Bench of Allahabad High Court, however, no effort was
made.
7. It is a settled principle of law that the power under Article
136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Constitution’) is to be invoked not in a routine manner but in
very exceptional circumstances when a question of law of general
public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned
before this Court shocks the conscience of the court. This
overriding and exceptional power vested in this Court has to be
exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of
justice. (Vide: Subedar v. The State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125; and
Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharathnam & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1284).
8. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh v. The
State, AIR 1950 SC 169 cautioned that the wide discretionary power
vested in this Court should be exercised sparingly and in
exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown to
exist.
9. Another Constitution Bench in The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v.
The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd, Delhi etc., AIR 1950 SC 188,
reiterated the caution couching it in a different phraseology and
said that this Court would not, under Article 136 of the
Constitution, constitute itself into a Tribunal or Court just
settling disputes and reduce itself into a mere Court of error.
The power under Article 136 of the Constitution is an
extraordinary power to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases
and on well-known principles.
10. In Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 932, this Court
while dealing with a similar case held as under:
"Article 136 of the Constitution enables this Court, in its
discretion to grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in
the territory of India. Undoubtedly, under Article 136 in
the widest possible terms, a plenary jurisdiction exercisable
on assuming appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon
this Court. However, it is an extra-ordinary jurisdiction
vested by the Constitution in the Court with implicit trust
and faith and thus, extraordinary care and caution has to be
observed while exercising this jurisdiction. There is no
vested right of a party to approach this Court for the
exercise of such a vast discretion, however, such a course
can be resorted to when this court feels that it is so
warranted to eradicate injustice. Such a jurisdiction is to
be exercised by the consideration of justice and call of
duty. The power has to be exercised with great care and due
consideration but while exercising the power, the order
should be passed taking into consideration all binding
precedents otherwise such an order would create problems in
the future. The object of keeping such a wide power with
this Court has been to see that injustice is not perpetuated
or perpetrated by decisions of courts below. More so, there
should be a question of law of general public importance or
a decision which shocks the conscience of the court are
some of the prime requisites for grant of special leave.
Thus, unless it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist that substantial and grave injustice has
been done and that the case in question presents features of
sufficient gravity warranting review of the decision appealed
against, such exercise should not be done."
11. In Mathai @ Joby v. George & Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 358, this
Court while dealing with a similar case observed that now-a-days
it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of
orders of the High Court or other authorities without realising
the scope of Article 136. Hence, the court felt it incumbent on it
to reiterate that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary
forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under the constitutional scheme,
ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary cases was
meant to be the High Court. The Supreme Court as the Apex Court in
the country was meant to deal with important issues like
constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance
or where grave injustice has been done to a party. If the Supreme
Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be
flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not be able to deal
with important questions relating to the Constitution or the law
or where grave injustice has been done, for which it was really
meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme
Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected
to hear every kind of dispute. The court expressed its sympathy
with the judges as they struggle with an unbearable burden. The
judges spend late nights trying to read briefs for a Monday or a
Friday. When each of the 13 Benches have to dispose off about 60
cases in a day, the functioning of the Supreme Court of India is a
far cry from what should be desiderate for disposal of cases in a
calm and detached atmosphere.
All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of
any country. Of-lately, there has been an increase in the trend of
litigants rushing to the courts, including this court, for all
kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of
public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would
disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing
the case. It is a pity that the time of the Court which is
becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be
wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a
check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be
avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who
are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their
clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the
Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them
to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden
should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this
Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the
problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation
of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done.
12. It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily
upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the
wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous
litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and
uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation,
the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive
which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties
as well as on learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner.
(Vide: Varinderpal Singh v. Hon’ble Justice M.R. Sharma & Ors.,
1986 Supp SCC 719; Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi &
Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249; and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani &
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2881)
13. Many a times this Court has expressed its anguish and
unhappiness about the time of the Court being wasted for petty
matters. (See: Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh
Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331; and Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3750).
14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that this petition has been filed by the petitioners and accepted
to do so by the Advocate-on-Record without any sense of
responsibility. If the Hon’ble Judge has directed to list the
application before another Bench, we fail to understand as which
of the petitioners’ right got violated. There could have been some
reasonable cause for the Hon’ble Judge to pass such an order.
We have no words to express our displeasure for the
attitude and course adopted by the petitioners and the Advocate-on-
Record. The special leave petition is dismissed.
..................................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
..................................J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi,
March 10, 2014.
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
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 (Crl)... 2013
CRLMP.NO(s). 25683
(From the judgement and order dated 14/05/2013 in CRLA No.4309/2012, of The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
PHOOL CHANDRA & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date: 10/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ajit Kumar Pande,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable order.
[Nidhi Ahuja] [M. S. Negi]
Court Master Assistant Registrar
[Signed reportable order is placed on the file.]