(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2893 of 2006)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat.J : Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the
order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Uttranchal High Court
dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. The High Court took
exception to the fact that two petitions were filed in respect of the
same impugned order. According to the High Court the appellants had
concealed the fact that the second petition had been filed while the
first petition was pending consideration.
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Criminal Misc. Application No.4279 of 1998 was filed by the appellants
before the Allahabad High Court. After bifurcation of the State the said
case was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court and was re-numbered as
Criminal Misc. Application No.953 of 2001. It appears that there was
another petition filed which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application
No. 4435 of 1998 and the same was re-numbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No. 950 of 2001. The High Court was of the view that
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 corresponding to Criminal
Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 was filed earlier and when the
appellants failed to get an order of stay they filed the second petition
suppressing the fact that one earlier petition was pending. In the
second petition the appellants got an order of stay. This according to
the High Court was a depreciable practice.
Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the confusion arose because the latter petition i.e.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 was renumbered as Criminal
Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier petition i.e. Criminal
Misc. Application No. 4279 of 1998 was re-numbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No. 953 of 2001. It is pointed out that the said petition
was filed on 6.10.1998 and there was an interim order passed in the said
case. It is submitted that by mistake the advocate's clerk filed exact
copy of the earlier petition which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No. 4435 of 1998. The same was filed at a latter date. In
this background it was submitted that there was no suppression and in
was no reason to mislead the Hon'ble Court.
Per contra learned counsel for the
State submitted that the appellants have not explained satisfactorily as
to under what circumstances two similar applications were filed.
We find that in fact the confusion
arose because the petition filed later was renumbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No. 950 of 2001 while the petition filed earlier, in which
the order of stay granted on 23.12.1998, was re-numbered as Criminal
Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001
Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the filing of the second application was on account
of confusion and the same in fact was not pressed.
In the peculiar circumstances of the
case we are satisfied that the filing of the second application was on
account of a bona fide mistake and the confusion arose because of the
fact that the second criminal application was renumbered as Crl. Misc.
Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier petition was re-numbered as
953 of 2001. In the aforesaid background we set aside the order of the
High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh
consideration on merits. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has
stated that Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 was not pressed,
the same need not be considered by the High Court.
Before we part with the case, it has
to be noted that several instances have come to our notice that several
petitions of similar nature are being filed without disclosing that
earlier a petition had been filed. It would be therefore appropriate for
the High Courts to make provision in the relevant Rules that in every
petition it shall be clearly stated as to whether any earlier
petition had been filed and/or is pending in respect of the same cause
of action. It shall also be indicated as to what was the result of the
earlier petition. If this procedure is followed, the confusion of the
kind which has surfaced in this case can be ruled out.
The appeal is disposed of.
Print This Judgment