SUNIL KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 27-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 184 
SUNIL KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Crl.M.P. No. 7477 of 2012) 
IN 
SLP (Crl.) No. 2430 of 2012 
MARCH 27, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, 
JJ.] 
Administration of Justice: 
Abuse of process of the court - Petitioner and another 
person convicted and sentenced uls. 7 of the 1955 Act for 
0 having possession of large quantity of blue kerosene and 
indulging in unauthorized sale - Appeal by petitioner 
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 30. 7.2010 -
Application by the petitioner for modifying the order of the High 
Court, giving him benefit of the provisions of s. 360 Cr.P.C. 
E and/ors. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, dismissed 
by order dated 19. 9. 2011 - SLP against the order dated 
30. 7.2010 passed by High Court, dismissed - Subsequently, 
instant SLP filed challenging the order dated 19.9.,2011 -
Held: High Court n'ghtly concluded vide impugned order dated 
19. 9. 2011 that court could not entertain the petition having 
F become functus officio - Petitioner being a black-marketeer 
presumed that he had a right to dictate terms to the court and 
get desired results, thus, approached this Court again and 
sought the relief prayed before the High Court - Petitioner had 
lost in four courts earlier - No explanation was furnished as 
G to why the instant petition could not be filed during the 
pendency of the earlier SLP or both the orders could not be 
challenged simultaneously - Thus, the relief sought by the 
petitioner cannot be granted - Petition is misconceived and 
untenable - Petition being devoid of any men't, is dismissed 
H 
184 
SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 
185 
with the cost of Rs.20,0001- to be deposited by the petitioner A 
with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within the 
stipulated period - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 
P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1208: 
1988 ( 3 ) SCR 547; Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. 
8 
(2011) 11 SCC 140: 2010 (11 ) SCR 871; State of Punjab v. 
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc. AIR 2012 SC 364; 
Vishnu Agarwal v. State of UP. & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1232; 
Dr. Buddhi Kofa Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors., AIR 1996 
SC 2687: 1996 ( 4) Suppl. SCR 574; Sabia Khan & Ors. v. 
C 
State of UP. & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2284; Abdul Rahman v. 
Prasony Bai & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 488: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 
260; lssar Das v. The State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 1295: 
1972 (3) SCR 312; Mis. Precious Oil Corporation & Ors. v. 
State of Assam AIR 2009 SC 1566:2009 (1) SCR 762; 
Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange & Ors. AIR 
D 
1974 SC 228: 1974 ( 2) SCR 154 - referred to. 
Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr. (2000) 6 
SCC 359: 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538; Meghmala & Ors. v. 
G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383: 2010 (10) 
E 
SCR 47; Chhanni v. State of UP. (2006) 5 SCC 396: 2006 
(3) Suppl. SCR 305 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference: 
1988 (3) SCR 547 
Referred to 
Para 2 
F 
2010 (11) SCR 871 
Referred to 
Para 3 
AIR 2012 SC 364 
Referred to 
Para 9 
AIR 2012 SC 1232 
Referred to 
Para 9 
G 
2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 Distinguished 
Para 10 
2010 (10) SCR 47 
Distinguished 
Para 10 
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 305 Distinguished 
Para 11 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 574 Referred to 
Para 14 
AIR 1999 SC 2284 
Referred to 
Para 15 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 260 Referred to 
Para 16 
B 
1972 (3) SCR 312 
Referred to 
Para 17 
2009 (1) SCR 762 
Referred to 
Para 18 
1974 (2) SCR 154 
Referred to 
Para 18 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL) No. 
C 2430 of 2012. 
D 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.9.2011 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No. 39067 
of 2011 in CRA No. 1127-SB/1999. 
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Petitioner 
The order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J 1. Delay condoned. 
2. Once it had been commented that anti-social elements 
i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and whole horde of 
reactionaries have found their safe haven in the Supreme Court 
F and such a comment became subject matter of contempt of this 
Court and had to be dealt with by this Court in P.N. Duda v. P. 
Shiv Shanker & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1208. 
3. This Court in Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 
G (2011) 11 SCC 140 quoted the observations made by the High 
Court in that case expressing its views that common man must 
feel assured to get justice and observed as under: 
"Let not the mighty and the rich thi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.