Dismissed

Zaira D. Gomes v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Oct 2013APPW/276/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an applicant in person's criminal application seeking to set aside a coordinate bench's judgment under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., holding that the provision does not extend to scrutinising orders of coordinate benches.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to set aside the coordinate judgment under S. 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; no costs awarded to the party in person.

Zaira D. Gomes Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

app276.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2013 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 820 OF 2012

Mrs. Zaira D. Gomes

... Applicant.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents.

¶10

Ms. Zaira D. Gomes, applicant-in-person present in Court.

¶11

Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the respondent no.1.

¶12

Shri A.M. Chimalkar, for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶13

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.

¶14

RESERVED ON : 1ST OCTOBER, 2013

¶15

PRONOUNCED ON : 21ST OCTOBER, 2013

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The note is moved by the applicant party in person for speaking to the minutes of the Order passed by this Court on 27^th August, 2013.

¶18

2. Order dated 27^th August, 2013, reads thus :

¶19

“Party in-person prays for time to enable her to address on the point as to whether there is any reported or unreported decision which enables this Court to set aside the judgment rendered on merits.

¶20

S.O. to 17^th September, 2013.”

¶21

1/4

¶22

app276.13

¶23

After hearing the party in person, it has transpired that the party in person was not able to receive and grasp what the Order dated 27^th August, 2013 exactly meant. Therefore, this Court has allowed the applicant party in person to address the Court by ignoring whatever was recorded by this Court, in the Order dated 27^th August, 2013. Therefore, this court has taken up main application for hearing.

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

Perused the Order passed by this Court on 5th November, 2012, while deciding Writ Petition No. 820 of 2012.

¶26

It is seen that main prayer of the applicant is prayer (1), which reads thus :-

¶27

“1) This Honourable Court may be graciously pleased, to please set aside the palpable Erroneous Judgment and Order dated 5/11/2012, passed by the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, which deserves to be recalled and set aside, and to consider the Writ Petition No. 820/12, Afresh, to prevent the 'Abuse Of The Process' and to 'Secure the Ends of Justice'.

¶28

(Quoted portion is the amended prayer (1) from

¶29

2/4

¶30

app276.13

¶31

Page 24(A) of the Application).

¶32

It is seen that all other prayers contained in the application are consequential if prayer (1) quoted above is favourably considered.

¶33

By present application, this court is called to exercise the powers u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside a judgement passed by co-ordinate bench of this court by way of review.

¶34

Language of Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. and settled law on said does not extend to the power of this court to scrutinise any order passed by a coordinate bench.

¶35

It appears that the applicant has some grievance against a judgment and order passed by this Court, while dismissing the writ petition No.820 of 2012. It is evident that the error complained of and relief sought in this application is not for correction of a clerical error.

¶36

In the premises and ground on which a grievance is made in relation to the judgment of this court rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No.820 of 2012, the applicant may have to take legal advise and take recourse to remedy if available in law, instead of assuming knowledge of and mastery over the interpretation of law and in particular section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶37

3/4

¶38

app276.13

¶39

This Court would not enter into the arena of what would be the remedy and forum available to the Petitioner, because advising is not the province of jurisdiction of this court. It shall suffice to observe that the forum and remedy chosen by the applicant i.e. by way of an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not the jurisdiction to entertain any scrutiny Judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate bench.

¶40

Hence the application is dismissed with. Being party in person, this court refrain from ordering costs.

¶41

4/4

Zaira D. Gomes v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaira D. Gomes v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Hirya Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunny Mannikam Nadar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mansoor S. Shah Vs Daisy Damania and Anr.

Raghuveer Singh S/O Jai Prakash Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Eknath Kumawat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilam Bhanudas Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra