Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Satya Pal Anand vs State Of M.P. on 21 February, 2014
¶’ 1
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIA
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) No(s).5019/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 22/06/2012 in WPCR
No.1771/2012, of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT INDORE)
SATYA PAL ANAND Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission and office report)
With CRLMP NO.24529/2012 IN SLP (C) NO. 5019/2013.
Date: 21/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-In-Person,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, ASG
Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkoo, Adv.
Ms. Sripriya Juneja, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.24529 In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5019 of 2012
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this petition for expunging certain paragraphs from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5019 of 2012. The special leave petition is filed by the petitioner-in-person. On 10/2/2012, he submitted his written submissions and requested this Court to take them on record. He made a statement that due to his advanced age and health condition, he may not be able to attend the court and that the matter may be 2 decided on the basis of his written submissions. The written submissions were taken on record. As requested by him, he was exempted from personal appearance.
2. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Luthra, Additional Solicitor General. We have perused the paragraphs which the respondent wants to be expunged from the special leave petition. We do find that these paragraphs are derogatory and unwarranted. In the circumstances, we grant the prayer for expunging the said paragraphs from the special leave petition, which are reproduced in the instant application.
3. We also find that in his written submissions, the petitioner has made certain derogatory remarks. We direct that they may also be expunged. We would have saddled the petitioner-in-person with costs but considering the cause for which he filed the petition, we refrain from doing so.
4. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.5019 OF 2014
5. The petitioner had filed a public interest litigation in the Madhya Pradesh High Court taking note of an incident of gang rape which had taken place at Betma, Indore. His grievance in the petition was that compensation paid to the victims was not adequate and that the accused should be adequately proceeded against. In the impugned order, the High Court recorded the statement of learned Additional Advocate General that by way of interim relief, Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each is paid to the victims. The High Court also observed that the State Government had taken prompt action against the accused and the trial was going on. In the circumstances, the PIL was disposed of. The said order is challenged in this petition. The grievance of the petitioner again is that the compensation is inadequate and that proper action was not taken against the accused persons.
6. We have carefully perused the written submissions filed by the petitioner. We do not find any substance in them. Our attention is drawn to order dated 5/8/2013 passed by this Court. By this order, this Court made it clear that it was not undertaking the larger issue relating to framing of uniform social security schemes by the States of the victims because a group of writ petitions involving those issues was pending before this Court. The tenor of the said order shows that this Court restricted the scope of this petition to compensation to be paid to victims. This Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and directed the State which had paid only Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to each victim to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) more to each victim. The State Government has complied with that order and has filed an affidavit of compliance. This Court has also recorded statement made on behalf of the State Government that 3 it would take care of the victims in future also. We are informed that the accused have been convicted by the trial court.
7. In view of this, nothing survives in this special leave petition.
8. The special leave petition is disposed of.
[Gulshan Kumar Arora] [Indu Pokhriyal]
Court Master Court Master