Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The applicant had filed this application during the pendency of the withdrawal application dated 5.10.2015, filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh. The applicant claims that the crime being a gross case of custodial murder has caused violence, trauma, fear and loss not only to the interested parties, but also to the entire law abiding society. The applicant claims that though there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the respondent no.1, the CBI did not challenge the discharge order which has resulted in abuse of process of law and gross failure of justice. The applicant claims that Rubabuddin, the brother of the deceased Sorabuddin, who had Salgaonkar 3 of 31 apl 1248-15.doc challenged the said order had sought to withdraw the revision application as well as the application for condonation of delay, and as such it was left to the concerned citizens to pursue the matter in order to ensure justice in the larger interest of the society. The applicant claims that withdrawal of the revision application by Rubabuddin appears to be suspicious, under threats, inducement and promise. The applicant, who claims to be a socially responsible citizen has thus filed this application for the reliefs as stated above.

6. Whereas, the learned Sr. Counsel Shri Grover has submitted that the relief sought by Shri Kamble was entirely different from the relief sought by the applicant in this case. He has submitted that the order passed in Cri.

Application No.420 of 2015 is not relevant for deciding this application.

7. It is to be noted that by application dated 5.10.2015 Rubabuddin Shaikh, the brother of the deceased Sorabuddin had sought leave to withdraw the said revision application as well as the application for condonation of delay. During the pendency of this application one Shri Rajesh M. Kamble, who claimed to be an alert citizen, had filed an application being Criminal Application No.420 of 2015, opposing withdrawal of the said application by Rubabuddin Shaikh. The said application was dismissed by this court on merits by order dated 21.10.2015, interalia holding that the applicant Rajesh Kamble was neither a victim nor an aggrieved person. It was further held that the said applicant had not demonstrated that his legal rights were impaired or that any harm, injury was caused him or likely to be caused due to withdrawal of the Salgaonkar 5 of 31 apl 1248-15.doc Application. It was therefore, held that the Intervenor had no legal right to intervene in the proceedings, and accordingly the application filed by Rajesh Kamble was dismissed.

10. Shri Grover, the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has discharged the respondent no.1 by order dated 30.12.2014. The CBI had not challenged the discharge order, hence Rubabuddin, the brother of the deceased was compelled to file the revision application alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that since Rubabuddin, the aggrieved party had already filed a revision application, it was not necessary for the Applicant to challenge the discharge order. He has submitted that filing of withdrawal application by the aggrieved party has necessitated the applicant, a concerned citizen, to file the present application.

29. It is no doubt true that the powers under sections 482 and 483 of the Cr.P.C. are wide. However, it is well settled that these powers should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice or to prevent misuse of judicial mechanism or miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, Rubabuddin , the brother of the deceased who is an aggrieved party and at whose instance the crime was registered had by application dated 5.10.2015 which was supported by his affidavit, sought leave to withdraw the revision application as well the application for condonation of delay. Since said Rubabuddin was not represented by an advocate, no order was passed on the said application on the said date. On 6.10.2015 said Rubabuddin had remained present alongwith his counsel and had once again sought leave to withdraw the said Salgaonkar 21 of 31 apl 1248-15.doc applications. The counsel for Rubabuddin had also stated that Rubabuddin had expressed his desire to withdraw the revision application. Rubabuddin who was present in the court, upon being questioned, had reiterated that he was seeking to withdraw the application voluntarily and that he was not under pressure, threat or coercion from any person to withdraw the said applications. Despite the said statement, no order was passed on the withdrawal application as it was felt necessary to ascertain whether the withdrawal was voluntary. Once again on 20.10.2015 Rubabuddin remained present before the court along with his counsel and reiterated his desire to withdraw the said applications. He was heard in person in the chamber to ascertain whether his decision to withdraw the application was voluntary. Since said Rubabuddin did not appear to be in a physically fit condition, further time of one month was granted. The records reveal that on 23.11.2015 said Rubabuddin had remained present before the court and had once again reiterated his request to withdraw the application for condonation of delay. He had also made a statement that he did not want to file any application in future in respect of the subject matter of the revision application. In view of the said statement made by Rubabuddin, this court (Coram: A.V. Nirgude, J.) allowed the withdrawal of the Salgaonkar 22 of 31 apl 1248-15.doc application for condonation of delay and consequently, disposed of the revision application.