Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrinal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA-522-2022
(MRINAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 07-07-2022
Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma, father of appellant No. 1 and husband
of appellant No. 2 is present in person.
I.A. No.6965/2022 has been filed for giving authority to Mr.
Sameer Kumar Sharma for pleading the case as well as for change of
Bench.
It is mentioned in the application that since no Advocate of choice
of the appellants is available, therefore, they want that father of the
appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2 namely Mr. Sameer
Kumar Sharma may be permitted to plead the case.
Accordingly, so far as permission to Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma to
plead the case is concerned, the same is allowed.
In paragraph 6 of the same application, it has been mentioned as
under:-
"6. That, Moreover we wants to change the
present Bench of J.G.S. Ahuliwalia (correct spelling -
"Ahluwalia") Cr.No. 12 to any other Bench competent
enough. We do not believes and Faith with assistance of a
Legal Aaid Service."
Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma was directed to disclose the reasons for
making prayer for change of Bench. He submitted that the appellants do
not want hearing before this Court. However, he expressed that he does
not know the reasons for the same and he has merely filed that
application.
2
The submission made by Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma with regard to
his ignorance for filing the application for change of Bench is not
correct. Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma had filed M.Cr.C. No.23710/2018
and in such application, he was appearing in person. During the course of
hearing of the said case on 29.03.2022, Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma
sought time to engage a counsel. Accordingly, time was granted and the
case was taken up on 13.04.2022. On 13.04.2022 Mr. Sameer Kumar
Sharma once again appeared in person and prayed for time and,
accordingly, following order was passed:-
"Gwalior, Dated : 13-04-2022
Applicant is present in person.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Counsel for State.
On 29.03.2022, the applicant had sought time to
engage a counsel but today, he himself appeared in person
and once again prayed for time.
By order dated 14.02.2022, this Court had directed
the State Counsel to submit the documents pertaining to
the anti-encroachment proceedings which were submitted.
Since the Counsel for applicant is seeking
adjournment for no good cause, therefore, the sealed
envelop is returned to Counsel for the State.
As the applicant himself is not interested in arguing
the matter, therefore, the case is adjourned.
List this case after six months without any liberty
to mention.
The stay order is not continued."
During the course of arguments, Mr. Sharma was directed to point
the case number of application filed by him under Section 482 of CrPC
in which this Court had not extended time. Shri Sharma continuously
expressed that he does not recollect the case number of the said case.
However, he submitted that in W.P. No.2380/2008 this Court had directed
to list the case before another Bench.
3
In the present case also, Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma is appearing
for his son and wife and apparent reason for filing application for change
of Bench is that this Court had not continued the stay order for the simple
reason that the applicant after having obtained the stay order was
unnecessarily seeking adjournment for no good reason. Thus, the prayer
for change of Bench has been made with malafide intentions.
So far as the order passed in W.P.No.2380/2008 is concerned, the
same is reproduced as under:-
"Gwalior, Dated : 24.08.2021
Petitioner- Mr. Sameer Kumar Sharma is present in
person.
Shri Raju Sharma, Counsel for the respondents.
Record of the Departmental Enquiry is available. Shri Sharma was constantly requested to point out the charges so that his arguments can be considered. However, Shri Sharma constantly argued on different aspects and did not touch the charges.
When again it was requested to Shri Sharma that he should start his arguments from the charge sheet/charges, so that his arguments can be considered, then he replied ^^eS rks vkidks lgh&lgh crk jgk Fkk vki lquuk ugh pkg jgs gSA^^ Accordingly, list this case before Another Bench." From the plain reading of the said order, it is clear that the said order was passed for the simple reason that the petitioner was not in a position to argue the matter properly and when he was being directed to disclose the charges which were framed against him in a departmental enquiry, then he was misbehaving with the Court. Furthermore, the Judges are not expected to recuse themselves merely because the litigants want.
Accordingly, the prayer for change of Bench is hereby rejected. However, it is submitted by Shri Sharma that since the appellant 4 No. 1 is in jail and they are the poor persons, therefore, no cost may be imposed for making an unwarranted prayer.
Considering the mercy pleaded by Mr. Sharma, no cost is imposed. Accordingly, I.A. No.6965/2022 is partially allowed and the prayer for change of Bench is hereby rejected.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.07.08 19:17:36 +05'30'