Fit Case To Invoke Inherent Powers U/s. 482 CrPC To Safeguard Against Misuse Of Court Proceedings: Bombay HC Quashes Order Obtained By Fraud
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, observed that an order obtained by fraudulent means is 'non-est' in the eyes of the law. The Court invoked the inherent powers vested in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to safeguard against the misuse of the court's proceedings and rendered the impugned order null and void.
The Bench of Justice R.M. Joshi held, “The order has been passed in utter disregard to the order passed by High Court. It is settled law that an order obtained by fraud is non est in eyes of law. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise suo moto inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of Court to set aside order dated 29.05.2023 passed by incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 9/2021”.
Advocate A. S. More appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor G. L. Deshpande appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, the Petitioner was an under-trial prisoner facing serious charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Petitioner's applications for bail were rejected by the Trial Court. However, the Petitioner later moved a bail application before the High Court, which was granted. The High Court order allowed the petitioner to approach the court if the trial did not conclude within eight months. However, the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor allegedly suppressed this fact in subsequent proceedings. The Trial Court, in utter disregard of the High Court's order, granted bail to the petitioner based on an application filed before the Incharge Special Judge, Osmanabad, even though the judge was not overseeing the proceedings.
"The order passed by the Incharge Special Judge, Osmanabad on the face of it shows that in utter disregard to the order passed by this Court bail application came to be entertained and allowed", the Court noted.
The Court observed that the impugned order was obtained by the petitioner by suppressing material facts, which amounts to fraud upon the court and therefore took suo moto cognizance of the issue. The Court held, “Without expressing any view or opinion in respect of the facts as they are appearing on face of it, suffice it to say that the order in question is obtained by Petitioner/Accused by suppression of material facts which amounts to fraud upon Court”.
Additionally, the Court asserted that even if the order was not obtained through fraud, it would still be invalid because the learned Sessions Judge was not legally obligated to accept the surety. The order was a clear example of judicial indiscipline and fraud played by the party on the court.
“Even otherwise any order obtained by fraud is nullity and hence, learned Sessions Judge was not under legal obligation to accept the surety in pursuant to the order passed, which is apparently demonstrated judicial indiscipline and fraud played by party upon Court. Resultantly, Petition deserves to be dismissed”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. The State of Maharashtra
