C482/421/2007 of YUVRAJ SINGH AND ORS. Vs STATE AND ANR. on 28 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Recall Application No.219 of 2013

IN

Criminal Misc. Application No.421 of 2007 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Yuvraj Singh & others ………. Petitioners

Vs.

State of Uttaranchal and another

..…. Respondents

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Jogendra Singh (applicant/respondent no.2 in person).

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Sri Jogendra Singh, who was the private respondent in C482 petition no.421 of 2007, has come up seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 01.08.2011 passed by this Court, whereby the said petition was allowed and the impugned order of cognizance dated 19.03.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in criminal complaint case no.5114 of 2004 titled as ‘Jogendra Singh Vs. Yuvraj Singh and others’, was quashed.

Sri Jogendra Singh, who has come up in person, has sought recall of the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that while hearing the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., Sri Manish Arora, Advocate was heard by this Court on his behalf, however he never engaged Mr. Arora to argue the case. It was further argued that Mr. Manish Arora, on the strength of a forged Vakalatnama, could be successful in arguing the matter before this Court, which was adjudicated against him.

Needless to say that as per a galaxy of precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court, review/recall of a judgment rendered by this Court, in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. In this regard, the precedent in the case of “Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & others (2001) 1 SCC 169” can be looked into.

That apart, having a look upon the judgment and order, sought to be recalled, it appears that Sri Manish Arora, Advocate well-resisted and countered the arguments put forth on behalf of petitioners before this Court in the petition moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The theme of said petition was that a chargesheet against the accused persons Yuvraj Singh and others had already been committed to the court of Sessions while on the same facts, Sri Jogendra Singh instituted a criminal complaint case in the court of Magistrate which remained pending before the said Magistrate, at the pre-cognizance stage, for a period of as much as 11 years. Subsequently, after more than a decade, the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. Hence, the accused persons came up before this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and the arguments advanced by Sri Manish Arora, Advocate, on behalf of Sri Jogendra Singh, was that instead of quashing the proceedings, the Court could have directed for amalgamation of both cases i.e. Complaint case and State case, as provided u/s 210 Cr.P.C. So, this was a perfect and only argument which could have been made on behalf of Sri Jogendra Singh by his counsel Sri Manish Arora. The Court, however, did not find it proper to send Sri Yuvraj Singh and twelve other persons, back to the court below and then to face complexities by way of engagement of lawyers and waiting for the orders to be passed u/s 210 Cr.P.C. Instead, the Court, at its own level, quashed the said complaint case and passed the judgment and order, under challenge in recall application.

In the opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment was absolutely just and proper and I do not find any error apparent on the face of it.

In the above conspectus, the recall application is bereft of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Rdang

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) December 28, 2013