Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the respondent/state vehemently opposed the application and submits that there is neither any misrepresentation nor any suppression of facts by the respondent. He argued that by affidavit filed in terms of the court order dated 21.02.2024, they have clarified in para no.4 that the charge sheet was prepared on 17.05.2018 and the same was filed before the court of law on 25.1.2020. The date 17.05.2018 was date for preparation of charge sheet. However, due to typographical mistake, it has been mentioned to be date of filling of charge sheet. It is also submitted that the applicant is unnecessarily causing hindrance in the trial and he is in habit of challenging all kind of interlocutory orders passed by the court below. He is filling applications under section 340 of Cr.P.C against the officer in-charge of the case and the counsel whosoever represents state either before the trial court or before the High Court. He has referred para 7 of the reply containing a list of cases to show that till this date as many as 17 cases have been filed by the applicant either before the Apex Court, this High Court or other High Court challenging interlocutory orders including writ petitions. The list is reproduced as under :-

He further referred the order passed by the Division Bench in WP NO.10301/2019 passed on 26.06.2019, whereby, the petitioner challenged the registration of FIR and claimed other reliefs alleging violation of his fundamental rights. The said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised approach trial court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law in case he feels that some evidence which is being used against him or is part of the charge sheet has not been supplied to him in respect of any other grievance as well as for early conclusion of trial. He also referred the order passed by this court in WP No.4171/2023 dated 19.09.2023. He also pointed out that the applicant has committed typographical mistake in his application IA NO.17239/2023. The reply to the affidavit where he claimed exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/-, however, in words he has mentioned Rs.1,00,000/- only. Thus, the applicant may also be held liable to misrepresentation of facts under section 340 of Cr.P.C. He quoted this example to demonstrate that these are typographical mistakes which are cryptic in the reply of the respondent or in the affidavit filed by the applicant himself being human error and they have to be treated to be typographical mistake only.

In the light of the aforesaid submission, he prayed for dismissal of the present application with heavy cost.

I have heard applicant and counsel for the respondent/state.

So far the contention of the applicant that the respondents have made a false statement before this Court stating that challan was filed on 17.05.2018, the respondents have clarified by filling affidavit dated 09.03.2024 stating that since that on 17.05.2018 the charge sheet was prepared and the same was filed before the court of law on 25.01.2020. Mentioning of dated 17.05.2018 as date of filling of charge sheet (challan) is nothing but typographical mistake and there was no intention to mislead or misrepresent the facts before this Court. Upon perusal of the additional affidavit and record, this court finds that there is no intentional misrepresentation or suppression of fact on the part of the officer incharge of the case or the lawyer who is representing the respondent. The said mistake was only a typographical mistake as applicant has also committed typographical mistake in the prayer clause of the reply to the affidavit. The said mistake is unintentional and does not intend to mislead the court.