LexKAMLESH VERMA versus MAYAWATI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 25 KAMLESH VERMA A v. MAYAWATI AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 453 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) 135 OF 2008 B AUGUST 8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. AND DIPAK MISRA, J.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 137 - Review C jurisdiction .:... Exercise of -Scope - Review, when maintainable and when not maintainable - Principles summarised and discussed - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL VII, r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Part VIII, Or. ~. D Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.137 - Review petition - Maintainability- Vide order dated 18.09.2003 in M.C. Mehta case, the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to conduct inquiry with respect to execution of Taj Heritage Corridor E Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into registration of an FIR under provisions of /PC and the PC-Act against several persons including respondent no. 1 - CBI thereupon lodged another FIR under provisions of the PC Act only against respondent no. 1 with regard to alleged acquisition of disproportionate movable and F immovable assets by her and her relatives - Respondent no. 1 filed writ petition before Supreme Court against the second FIR - Supreme Court by order dated 06.07.2012, quashed the second FIR holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain any specific direction regarding G lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against respondent no. 1 and that the CBI exceeded its juri~diction in lodging the same - Review petition challenging order dated 06.07.2012 passed in the Writ Petiljon - Held: ' 25 H 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 11 S.C.R. A Review petitioner herein was intervener in the earlier writ Petition - Contentions raised by him were dealt with and duly considered at length in the order dated 06. 07. 2012 and it was clarified that anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not the subject matter of reference - Inasmuch as the very same B point was urged once again, the same was impermissible - In the writ petition, the Supreme Court had not gone into any other aspect relating to the claim of the CBI, intervener (review petitioner herein) or the stand of the respondent except the dimctions relating to Taj Heritage Corridor Project which was c the only /is - No material within the parameters of review jurisdiction to go into order dated 06.07.2012 passed in the Writ Petition - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL VII, r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Part VIII, Order XL - Penal Code, 1860 - s.120-B rlw ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 - 0 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(d) and s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(e). Vide order dated 18.09.2003 in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution E of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into the registration of an FIR being No. 0062003A0018 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120-B read with Sections 42CI, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and under Section 13(2) read F with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against several persons including Respondent No.1. On the very same date, i.e., on 05.10.2003, the Superintendent of Police, CBl/ACP lodged another FIR G being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:, 1988 only against respondent no.1 with regard to the alleged acquisition of disproportionate movable and immovable assets by respondent no.1 and her relatives. H Aggrieved by the filing of the FIR being RC No. KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI 27 0062003A0019 of 2003, respondent no.1 preferred Writ A Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 before this Court, wherein the review petitioner herein also moved an application for intervention. This Court allowed the application for intervention and then by order dated 06.07.2012, quashed the FIR being No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 B holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against respondent no.1 and that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the same. c The order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 was challenged in the present review petition. The question which arose for consideration be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.