High Court Justice passes a Questionable Order
Learned Fellow Members,
I am a Social Activist, on the 3rd of March 2010 a Plane flown by Pilot Commander S.K.Maurya of the Indian Navy Crashed into a illegally constructed building in Secunderabad Cantonment, wherein the Pilot Died.
I filed a Criminal Complaint against the building owner, the Elected Ward Member of Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the Board.
Magistrate took cognizance and titled the private complaint as Calendar Case No..... of 2012. The accused moved the High Court by filing a Criminal Petition U/s.482 and sought the quashing of the calendar case.... The matter was heard/argued in 2016 and the honorable Judge allowed the Criminal Petition in favor of A2 to A4 and dismissed the Petition against A1.
The most amazing part of the order is that the Justice stated that Accused A2 to A4 have retired from service and criminal negligence on their part can not be attributed.
But the fact is that the Accused A3 and A4 are still in service as per the information gathered under the RTI act after passing of the Order.
The part of the accused A2 to A4 being retired from service has not been a part of the Petition or the Arguments or has it been presented tot he Court. But the Justice decided to retire them from service in the said case while they are still in service A3 & A4.
What should be done in such a case, where the Justice passes an Order in favor or the accused. What can be done other than filing of an SLP in the Supreme Court against the order.
How can such a corrupt order be given? more
I am a Social Activist, on the 3rd of March 2010 a Plane flown by Pilot Commander S.K.Maurya of the Indian Navy Crashed into a illegally constructed building in Secunderabad Cantonment, wherein the Pilot Died.
I filed a Criminal Complaint against the building owner, the Elected Ward Member of Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the Board.
Magistrate took cognizance and titled the private complaint as Calendar Case No..... of 2012. The accused moved the High Court by filing a Criminal Petition U/s.482 and sought the quashing of the calendar case.... The matter was heard/argued in 2016 and the honorable Judge allowed the Criminal Petition in favor of A2 to A4 and dismissed the Petition against A1.
The most amazing part of the order is that the Justice stated that Accused A2 to A4 have retired from service and criminal negligence on their part can not be attributed.
But the fact is that the Accused A3 and A4 are still in service as per the information gathered under the RTI act after passing of the Order.
The part of the accused A2 to A4 being retired from service has not been a part of the Petition or the Arguments or has it been presented tot he Court. But the Justice decided to retire them from service in the said case while they are still in service A3 & A4.
What should be done in such a case, where the Justice passes an Order in favor or the accused. What can be done other than filing of an SLP in the Supreme Court against the order.
How can such a corrupt order be given? more
Viewed by 26
View all 8 comments Below 8 comments
Dear Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, The Process of impeachment of the HC & SC Judges is very cumbersome and in recent History there never ever any case to the effect except Kolkata High Court, which was also pacified, subsequently. The Question is are you seeking the change in system OR redress of your problem. In the first option, you and your resources will be too meager while in other option the suggestive way out is Appeal. more
Sep 25
can I not file a Private Criminal Complaint under section 219. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law.—Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or both. Though the difficulties are going to be there in obtaining a Sanction for prosecution of a Judge of High Court who is only removable by the Honorable President of India only after both the houses agree for the prosecution by a 2/3rd vote. This process itself is too laborious and time consuming and needless to say that the end there is no gaurantee that sanction will be extended or not. And in such a case of the sanction being denied over and above the time period set up by the Supreme Court of India, in Vineet Narain's case , can it be deemed sanction? more
Sep 25
The case pointed out by Mr. Singh is just one of the lakhs of cases, which fall in the category of wrong judgement by Judiciary. They do not even see the documents on record and make up their decision on FACTORS other than facts. There is a very strong need to make all of them accountable and all judgement should be subject to questioning. Today, they feel , they are super powers and they can not be questioned for their judgement, which in majority of cases is biased. more
Sep 24
It may be noted that Section 482 Cr.P.C. begins with the words “nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court”. These words indicate that Sec. 482 will have primacy over any other provision in the Cr.P.C. and can, therefore, override even Section 362 Cr.P.C. Of course, in a given case whether the High Court should review its own earlier order by resort to Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be left to the discretion of the High Court depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In Ramdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan v. Bani Kant Das & Ors. – AIR 2011 SC 615 it has been held by the Supreme Court that review of criminal judgments and orders is permissible on grounds of error apparent on the face of record Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/inherent-powers-high-court-sec-482-cr-p-c/ more
Sep 24
Dear Mr.Uday GB, while surfing the net on finding some material for Appeal Review Application as suggested by you i found this " The inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised to review an earlier order passed by the High Court since the power of review is expressly barred under Sec. 362 Cr.P.C. Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/inherent-powers-high-court-sec-482-cr-p-c/ more
Sep 24
