Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vinay Rangshahi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 10 July, 2015

                                    1            RP.281/2015
                      Vinay Rangshahi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

10.07.2015
      Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri Praveen Newaskar, Advocate for the official
respondents.

Shri S.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.7. Heard.

This review petition seeks review of order dated 18.06.2015.

Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the review petitioner, contends that this court without hearing the review petitioner has passed the said order. Respondent No.7 herein should have impleaded the present review petitioner as party respondent in the WP. The original petitioner has suppressed the fact that Sudeep Tomar has already lodged the FIR. If this fact would have been brought to the notice of this Court, result would have been different. He relied on (2008) 3 SCC 542 (Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.).

Prayer is opposed by Shri Newaskar and Shri Shrivastava. They submit that no case for review is made out.

In the opinion of this Court, while disposing the writ petition this court has made it clear that no view is expressed on merits. Present petitioner is unable to show that factum of lodging FIR by Sudeep Tomar was known to the original 2 RP.281/2015 Vinay Rangshahi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

petitioner. In absence thereof, I am unable to hold that writ petitioner is guilty of suppression of fact.

So far the judgment of Supreme Court relied upon by Shri Raghuvanshi is concern, in the said case without hearing the authorities, the High Court directed for investigation. Hence, interference was made. In the present case, no such direction was given. The present petitioner is free to produce the documents on which he is placing reliance before police authorities. It will be open for the police authorities to look into said material while dealing with the complain of original petitioner. No case is made out to exercise review jurisdiction.

Review petition is dismissed with observation made herein above.



                                                         (Sujoy Paul)
sarathe                                                    Judge