Friday, 1 May 2020

Whether court can permit withdrawal of criminal revision?

 Besides, as per the very text of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court or any Sessions Court may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and apparently, there is no express bar for withdrawal of such Criminal Revision Application by the applicant, if required, under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and since R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording of evidence, there was no necessity to ascertain the legality/correctness of order of issuance of process, and therefore, there was no propriety to continue with the said Criminal Revision Application on merits and same would have been disposed of as per the said withdrawal Pursish. Besides, whatever contemplated under Section 397(3) is that the revision petition before the Sessions Court and also before the High Court by the same person cannot be entertained, and in the event, the applicant having preferred revision petition before the Court of Sessions, he is debarred from making any revision petition before the High Court under Sub-Section 3 of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

12. Moreover, language used in the case of Rajindar Prasad vs. Bashir and others, reported at MANU/SC/0574/2001 : 2002 (1) Bom. Cr.C. 659 (SC) = AIR 2001 SC 3524, is that when the earlier revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed as not pressed, the accused could not be allowed to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for grant of the same relief. Hence, even the very text of the said judicial pronouncement impliedly makes it clear that the Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Sessions can be dismissed as not pressed.


14. In the circumstances, present Application deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order dated 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, below Exhibit 1, deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, is required to be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, to prevent abuse of process of court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3732 of 2012

Decided On: 19.10.2012

Rajendra Narayanrao Dhakne Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.P. Davare, J.

Citation: 2013 ALLMR (CRI) 1379


1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

3. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court.

4. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 against the present applicant alleging commission of the offence under Sections 5(2), 23 and 25 of Prohibition of Sex Selection Act, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, on 29-12-2011. It is the contention of the applicant herein, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, issued process against the applicant on 21-12-2011, without recording verification statement. Hence, being aggrieved, applicant herein preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 before the Court of Sessions, Beed, challenging the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in respect of issuance of process against the applicant herein. Accordingly, the said Criminal Revision Application was admitted on 7-3-2012, by the learned Sessions Judge, and notice was issued to the respondent therein, and copy of the said Criminal Revision Application is annexed herewith at Exhibit "A". Thereafter, since R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed for recording of evidence before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, the applicant herein preferred a Pursish Exhibit 8/C before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 on 17-7-2012, with a request to dispose of the said Criminal Revision Application since the applicant did not desire to prosecute the same. Learned Sessions Judge, Beed, passed an order on the said Pursish that, "Seen and filed. Read order below Exhibit 1", and passed the order below Exhibit 1 on the same day i.e. 17-7-2012, as follows:

Read withdrawal Pursish Exhibit 8.

It is well settled that Criminal Revision has to be decided by Sessions Court on merits. Hence, matter be posted for final hearing.

Copy of the said Pursish and order thereon is annexed herewith at Exhibit "B". Hence, the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present Application for the prayers as set out herein above.

5. Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant canvassed that since R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, for recording of evidence, the applicant herein i.e. revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, did not desire to prosecute the said Criminal Revision Application before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, and hence, he filed the Pursish Exhibit 8/C on 17-7-2012 stating the said reason and urged that the said Criminal Revision Application be disposed of. According to the applicant, when R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed for recording of evidence before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, there was no propriety to prosecute the said Criminal Revision Application since order of issuance of process passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, was under challenge therein. Hence, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per Pursish filed by the applicant below Exhibit 8/C on 17-7-2012, learned Sessions Judge, Beed, should have disposed of the said Criminal Revision Application considering the contents therein, but the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, observed that the said Criminal Revision Application is required to be decided on its own merits, and fixed the same for final hearing which, in fact, was unwarranted.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there may be two eventualities in the Criminal Revision Application filed before learned Sessions Judge, (i) it would be argued and decided on merits, or (ii) applicant may withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application and it could be dismissed as withdrawn, if he has no chances of success therein since the applicant of the said Criminal Revision Application is master of the own proceeding, but the said dismissal by withdrawal would be after entertaining it. To substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon the judicial pronouncement of Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Shri Swetamber Jain Sampraday vs. Digamber Amnay and others, reported at MANU/RH/0088/1981 : 1982 Cri.L.J. 701, wherein it is observed thus:

....There may be case where in the Court of Session, a revision petition may be argued on merits but feeling that there are no chances of success, a party may withdraw the application and it will be dismissed as withdrawn. Nonetheless it will be a dismissal after the revision petition is entertained.
7. Learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent supported the present petition and submitted that the Criminal Revision Application filed before the Sessions Court cannot be dismissed in the absence of the applicant, but it can be dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the applicant therein, since the applicant is master of his own proceeding. Even as regards the merits, learned APP submitted that the challenge to the issuance of process in the said Criminal Revision Application before learned Sessions Court is not tenable in the light of proviso of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, he submitted that in any event, said Criminal Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, and Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 pending before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, is required to be dismissed as withdrawn, as per the Pursish Exhibit 8/C, dated 17-7-2012, filed by the applicant herein.

8. I have perused the present Application, its annexures, copy of the Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 pending before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, and orders passed thereon, more particularly, impugned order passed below Exhibit 1 on 17-7-2012, and the Pursish Exhibit 8/C dated 17-7-2012 filed by the applicant in the proceedings of Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, and heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, and also considered judicial pronouncement cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant.

9. At the outset, undisputedly, the applicant herein preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, on the complaint filed by the respondent herein under R.C.C. No. 898/2011. It appears that thereafter said R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed for recording of evidence before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. Hence, the applicant herein filed Pursish below Exhibit 8/C in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 on 17-7-2012, categorically stating therein that the proceeding before the lower court was fixed for recording of evidence, and hence, the applicant herein was not desirous to proceed with the said Criminal Revision Application furthermore, and hence, submitted that the said Criminal Revision Application be disposed of. It is the matter of record that the said Criminal Revision Application was admitted by the learned Sessions Court on 7-3-2012, and thereafter Pursish Exhibit 8/C was preferred by the applicant on 17-7-2012. However, as stated in the said Pursish Exhibit 8/C, and as averred by the applicant herein, since R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed for recording of evidence before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, there was no propriety in prosecuting the said Criminal Revision Application before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, furthermore, and hence, the applicant herein filed the Pursish before the said court urging that the said Criminal Revision Application be disposed of.

10. There is no dispute that the Criminal Revision Application filed before the Sessions Court and admitted by the said court cannot be dismissed in the absence of the applicant. However, considering the peculiar facts in the present case, since R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording of evidence, there was no necessity and propriety to proceed furthermore with the Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, wherein the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, was under challenge, and hence, learned Sessions Judge, Beed, should have disposed of the said Criminal Revision Application as per Pursish dated 17-7-2012 filed at Exhibit 8/C by the applicant herein. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the applicant is the master of his own proceeding in the said Criminal Revision Application, and as canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant, after filing the Criminal Revision Application before learned Sessions Court, there are two eventualities : (i) such revision application after admission shall have to be decided on its own merits, or (ii) the revision application can be dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the applicant therein if the applicant feels that there are no chances of success, and no doubt, it will be dismissal after revision application is entertained, and the said view is fortified by the judicial pronouncement cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant in the case of Shri Swetamber Jain Sampraday vs. Digamber Amnay and others (supra).

11. Besides, as per the very text of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court or any Sessions Court may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and apparently, there is no express bar for withdrawal of such Criminal Revision Application by the applicant, if required, under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and since R.C.C. No. 898/2011 was fixed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording of evidence, there was no necessity to ascertain the legality/correctness of order of issuance of process, and therefore, there was no propriety to continue with the said Criminal Revision Application on merits and same would have been disposed of as per the said withdrawal Pursish. Besides, whatever contemplated under Section 397(3) is that the revision petition before the Sessions Court and also before the High Court by the same person cannot be entertained, and in the event, the applicant having preferred revision petition before the Court of Sessions, he is debarred from making any revision petition before the High Court under Sub-Section 3 of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

12. Moreover, language used in the case of Rajindar Prasad vs. Bashir and others, reported at MANU/SC/0574/2001 : 2002 (1) Bom. Cr.C. 659 (SC) = AIR 2001 SC 3524, is that when the earlier revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed as not pressed, the accused could not be allowed to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for grant of the same relief. Hence, even the very text of the said judicial pronouncement impliedly makes it clear that the Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Sessions can be dismissed as not pressed.

13. Apart from that, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that even on merits also, the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, would not be tenable in view of very proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

14. In the circumstances, present Application deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order dated 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, below Exhibit 1, deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, is required to be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, to prevent abuse of process of court.

15. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "A" and "B" thereof, and the impugned order dated 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, stands quashed and set aside, and the applicant is allowed to withdraw the Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the same Court, as per Pursish Exhibit 8/C, and present Application is disposed of accordingly.

16. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Certified Copy expedited.


Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment