S. Ramesh vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.583 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5167 of 2018)

S. Ramesh & Ors. Etc. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.585 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5175 of 2018) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.584 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5174 of 2018)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified 2. These appeals are directed against a common Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.04.02 17:57:30 IST Reason: final judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed

1 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.

O.P. Nos. 6231, 6322 & 6232/2018 whereby the

High Court dismissed the criminal original petitions

filed by the appellants herein.

3. It is not necessary to set out the factual matrix

of the controversy except to the extent it is

necessary for the disposal of these appeals.

4. By separate orders on 01.03.2018, the High

Court allowed three Criminal Original Petition Nos.

6231/2018, 6322/2018 and 6232/2018, which

were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

“Cr.P.C”) by the appellants herein for quashing of

CC No.1725/2013 arising out of FIR in Crime Case

No.3752/2012, CC No.4228/2015 arising out of FIR

in Crime Case No.1815/2015 and CC

No.6766/2014 arising out of FIR in Crime Case

No.3752/2012.

2

5. These orders were passed by the High Court in

the light of compromise dated 20.02.2018 said to

have been arrived at between the parties. In other

words, the High Court did not examine the merits of

these three cases in the light of the alleged

compromise said to have been arrived at between

the parties and accordingly disposed of the same

finally.

6. Respondent No.2 herein, who was respondent

No. 2 in the disposed of criminal original petitions

mentioned above, filed applications being Criminal

Misc. Petition Nos. 6611, 6612 and 6613 of 2018

praying therein to recall the orders dated

01.03.2018.

7. The recall was sought on various grounds and

on several facts. By a common impugned order, the

High Court in detail examined the questions and

finding merit in the grounds urged, recalled the

3 order dated 01.03.2018. However, while doing so,

the High Court also dismissed the three criminal

original petitions. It is against this order, the

petitioners of three criminal original petitions have

filed these appeals by way of special leave in this

Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow these appeals in part and

modify the impugned order to the extent indicated

hereinbelow.

10. In our considered opinion, though the High

Court was right in recalling its earlier orders dated

01.03.2018 passed in three criminal original

petitions but committed an error by simultaneously

dismissing three Criminal Original Petition Nos.

4 6231, 6322 and 6232 of 2018 and that too without

assigning any reason.

11. In our considered opinion, the effect of

recalling the order dated 01.03.2018 was that the

three criminal original petitions stood restored to

their respective numbers for their disposal on

merits in accordance with law as if the order dated

01.03.2018 had not been passed in those cases and

that they remained pending for their disposal on

merits.

12. The High Court, therefore, after recalling the

orders passed on 01.03.2018 should have fixed the

three criminal original petitions for their final

hearing on merits. Instead of doing that, the High

Court, on the one hand, restored the cases and, on

the other hand, dismissed them also.

13. This approach of the High Court, in our view,

was not legal and hence to that extent, the

5 impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set

aside.

14. Coming now to that part of the order, which

relates to recalling of three orders passed on

01.03.2018, we find no good ground to interfere in

the same.

15. In our opinion, keeping in view the grounds

taken by respondent No.2 in the applications for

recall of the orders, which found acceptance to the

High Court, we find no good ground to interfere in

that part of the order on the facts of the case alleged

in the applications for recall. In other words, having

regard to the facts alleged and grounds taken

therein, the recall orders cannot be faulted with.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

are allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside

to the extent it dismissed Criminal Original Petition

Nos. 6231, 6322 and 6232 of 2018.

6

17. These three cases are now restored to their

original numbers. The High Court is requested to

decide these three cases on merits in accordance

with law.

18. Having formed an opinion to remand the case,

we have not considered it necessary to set out the

entire factual dispute and nor have gone into its

merit. The High Court will, therefore, decide these

cases on merits strictly in accordance with law

uninfluenced by any observations made in the

impugned order and in this order.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

....……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi;

April 02, 2019.

7