Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, considered an application for recalling its earlier judgment dated 04/04/2018, which had quashed FIR No. 239/2017 registered at Police Station Murtizapur City, District Akola, for offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant was the widow of the deceased Eknathrao Ghurde, who committed suicide by hanging under a bridge. She lodged the FIR alleging abetment of suicide by the non-applicants 2 to 7, who were assistant teachers. The non-applicants had approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR in Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017. During pendency of that application, no stay of investigation was granted. The investigating officer filed a final report/charge-sheet on 23/01/2018 in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur. On 07/02/2018, summons were issued to the accused, who collected the charge-sheet on 27/02/2018. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.29/2018. Despite these developments, on 04/04/2018, a coordinate Bench of the High Court allowed the quashing application and quashed the FIR. The applicant's advocate, P.S. Patil, was absent on that date. The present recall application was filed on 05/10/2018, alleging that the accused suppressed the fact of filing of charge-sheet and committal from the court and that her advocate's absence was for reasons submitted. The court found that the accused had positive knowledge of the charge-sheet filing and committal but did not disclose these facts to their counsel, Shri R.R. Vyas, or to the court. The court reiterated the cardinal rule that a litigant seeking equitable relief must approach with clean hands and not suppress material facts. It held that suppression of filing of charge-sheet and committal amounted to suppression of vital facts affecting the court's jurisdiction. The court also held that the bar under Section 362 CrPC would not preclude recall because the earlier order was obtained by suppression. The court observed that had the fact of charge-sheet filing been brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench, it might have directed amendment of the application or filing of a fresh application challenging the charge-sheet. The court concluded that the present application for recalling was maintainable and Section 362 CrPC was not a hurdle. The final operative direction was not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Jurisdiction - Recall of Order Quashing FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482, Section 362 - The applicant, widow of deceased, sought recall of order dated 04/04/2018 quashing FIR No. 239/2017 for offences under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging suppression of filing of charge-sheet and committal. The court held that the recalling application was maintainable and that Section 362 CrPC did not bar it because the earlier order was obtained by suppression of material facts affecting jurisdiction. Held that discretionary relief under Section 482 CrPC requires clean hands. (Paras 3-4, 20-22) B) Equity - Clean Hands Doctrine - Suppression of Material Facts - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - Non-applicants 2 to 7, while seeking quashing of FIR, did not disclose that investigating officer had filed charge-sheet on 23/01/2018, summons issued on 07/02/2018, they collected charge-sheet on 27/02/2018, and case committed to Sessions as Sessions Trial No.29/2018 before the order dated 04/04/2018. The court found this suppression attributed to non-applicants alone and their counsel could not be held responsible if not informed. Held that litigants seeking equitable relief must approach with clean hands. (Paras 14-18, 20) C) Criminal Procedure - Bar on Altering Judgment - Applicability of Section 362 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 362 - The court considered the bar under Section 362 CrPC but held it would not come in the way because of non-disclosure and suppression of vital facts of filing of charge-sheet and committal while proceeding to pray for quashing of FIR. Held that suppression of material facts vitiated the earlier order and recalled jurisdiction. (Paras 20-22) D) Abuse of Process - Subsequent Developments During Pendency - Effect of Charge-Sheet Filing - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - During pendency of Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017, no stay was granted, and investigating officer filed final report, leading to committal to Sessions. If fact of charge-sheet filing had been brought to notice, coordinate Bench could have directed amendment or fresh application under Section 482 CrPC. Held that non-disclosure prevented proper judicial consideration. (Paras 6, 12-13, 19) E) Legal Profession - Advocate's Responsibility - Non-Disclosure by Client - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - Advocate R.R. Vyas stated that non-applicants did not communicate fact of charge-sheet filing to him; court accepted this. Held that counsel cannot be held responsible for client's suppression; burden falls on litigant. (Paras 15, 18, 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application for recalling the judgment dated 04/04/2018 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 789/2017 is maintainable despite the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the alleged suppression of filing of charge-sheet and committal proceedings by the accused.
Final Decision
The Court held that the application for recalling the order was maintainable and that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar it because the earlier order dated 04/04/2018 was obtained by suppression of material facts regarding filing of charge-sheet and committal. The final operative direction was not included in the provided text.
Law Points
- A litigant seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands
- suppression of material facts vitiates discretionary relief under Section 482 CrPC
- Section 362 CrPC bar does not apply when order is obtained by suppression of material facts
- filing of charge-sheet and committal during pendency of quashing petition must be disclosed
- advocate not responsible for non-disclosure by client if not informed
- court has inherent power to recall order obtained by fraud or suppression
