LexPHOOL CHANDRA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 97 PHOOL CHANDRA & ANR. A v. STATE OF U.P. (Crl. M.P. No. 25683 of 2013) IN (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2448 of 2014) B MARCH 10, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Special leave C petition - Maintainability of - In the instant case, petitioners were convicted by trial court - Appeal before High Court - Bail granted by High Court - Application by petitioner for early hearing of appeal wherein order passed to put up the case before appropriate Bench - SLP against the order of the High D Court - Held: The power u/Article 136 is to be invoked not in a routine manner but in very exceptional circumstances when a question of iaw of general public importance arises or impugned decision shocks the conscience of the court - This ove"iding and exceptional power vested in Supreme Court E has to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice - Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary cases is meant to be the High Court - The Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country is meant to deal with important issues like F constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance or where grave injustice has been done to a party - It is a pity that the time of the Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters - There is an urgent need to G put a check on such frivolous litigation - Bar to realise that great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be 97 H 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A made unbearable - The petition was filed by the petitioners and accepted to do so by the Advocate-on-Record without any sense of responsibility - If the court has directed to list the application before another Bench, none of the petitioners' right got violated - The court expressed displeasure for the attitude B and course adopted by the petitioners and the Advocate-on- Record - SLP dismissed - Administration of justice. Subedar v. The State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125: 1971 (1) ~CR 826; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharathnam & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1284: 1979 (3) SCR 482; Pritam Singh v. The C State, AIR 1950 SC 169; The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd, Delhi etc., AIR 1950 SC 188; Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 932: 2010 (2) SCR 239; Mathai@ Joby v. George & Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 358: 2010 (3) SCR 533; Varinderpal Singh v. Hon'ble Justice M.R. D Sharma & Ors., 1986 Supp SCC 719; Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249; Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2881; Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331: 1975 (3) SCR 619; Kadra Pahadiya E & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3750 : 1997 (3) SCR 32- relied on. Case Law Reference: 1971 (1) SCR 826 relied on Para 7 F 1979 (3) SCR 482 relied on Para 7 AIR 1950 SC 169 relied on Para 8 AIR 1950 SC 188 relied on Para 9 G 2010 (2) SCR 239 relied on Para 10 2010 (3) SCR 533 relied on Para 12 1986 Supp sec 719 relied on Para 12 H c2011) 8 sec 249 relied on Para 12 PHOOL CHANDRA & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 99 AIR 2012 SC 2881 1975 (3) SCR 619 1997 (3) SCR 32 relied on relied on relied on Para 12 Para 13 Para 13 A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) B No. 2448 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4309 of 2012. Ajit Kumar Pande for the Petitioners. The following order of the Court was delivered 0 RD ER 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad while dealing with the application for early hearing in Criminal Appeal No. 4309 of 2012. 2. The petitioners stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') in Sessions Trial No. 879 of 2010 (State of U.P. v. Phool Chandra & Anr.) arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad in which FIR was lodged on 8.2.2009 by one Bhola Nath alleging that his daughter Kumari Manita aged 14 years, student of class 10th had g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.