Findings Of Higher/Coordinate Bench While Rejecting A Plea Must Be Seriously Considered By Court Hearing Similar Plea: P&H High Court
"The findings of a higher Court or a Coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a similar petition at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier": Punjab & Haryana High Court
Underling the fact that though the principles of res judicata and such analogous principles are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, the Punjab & Haryana High Court last week observed that the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. Importantly, the Bench of Justice Alka...
Underling the fact that though the principles of res judicata and such analogous principles are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, the Punjab & Haryana High Court last week observed that the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country.
Importantly, the Bench of Justice Alka Sarin further observed,
"The findings of a higher Court or a Coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a similar petition at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier."
The matter before the Court
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 340 r/w with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for granting sanction to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent for the offence of knowingly filing a false affidavit (perjury) in CWP. No.1986 of 1993, cheating, forgery and defamation and for directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for further proceeding in Criminal Complaint No.231 of 2003.
Notably, the petitioner had approached this Court for the fifth time for seeking the same relief under the same provisions of law by cleverly re-wording some portions of her petition as she had been unsuccessful on the earlier four occasions.
The petitions were either filed praying for charging the respondent for knowingly filing a false affidavit or for granting sanction to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent for knowingly filing a false affidavit.
Court's observations
Calling the present proceedings "nothing more than an abuse of the process of the Court", the HC observed,
"The earlier orders passed by this Court declining any relief to the petitioner in her petitions filed under Section 340 CrPC still hold good and have not been set aside by the Supreme Court. The present petition seeking the same relief on the same cause of action is not maintainable."
The Court further noted that four Coordinate Benches of this Court found that no inquiry under Section 340 CrPC was called for in relation to the written statement filed in CWP No.1986 of 1993 and this Court does not find any material on record to permit the petitioner to reagitate this issue.
The Court further remarked,
"It is well settled that litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts, such litigants have come with unclean hands and are not entitled to relief."
Lastly, the present petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed with costs. Costs of Rs.25,000/- was directed to be deposited with the 'Haryana Corona Relief Fund.
"Costs are being imposed since precious judicial time, during the Covid-19 Pandemic, has been wasted on an issue which already stands decided against the petitioner on four earlier occasions", concluded the Court.
Case title - Vijay Lata v. Rajiv Arora [CRM-M-43025-2020]
Click Here To Download Order/Judgment
Read Order/Judgment