Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 732 OF 2013

IN

  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) 5911 OF  2013

KISHORE SAMRITE      .... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. .... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

The instant review petition has been filed for review of our  

order dated 8th August, 2013 dismissing Special Leave Petition  

(Criminal)  No.  5911  of  2013  (Kishore  Samrite  vs.  State  of  

M.P.), in limine.  The aforesaid special leave petition was filed  

challenging  the  order  dated  6th May,  2013  passed  by  the  

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010

Page 2

whereby  the  petitioner’s  prayer  for  stay  of  conviction  under  

Section 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the Indian Penal  

Code  and  Section  3(1)(x)  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  

Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act,  1989  was  

rejected.  Review of the Order has been sought for mainly on  

the following grounds:

“ii. BECAUSE as it  has been stated herein  above on 27.07.2012 the relevant order  was passed for listing the another SLP of  the Petitioner before a Bench of  which  Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  Chandramauli  Kr.  Prasad was not a member and again on  06.08.2013 similar order was passed in  the  Review  Petition  filed  by  the  Petitioner  i.e.  just  2  days  prior  to  the  passing  of  the  impugned  order  in  the  present  case  and  considering  the  said  orders passed the present SLP filed by  the  Petitioner  ought  not  to  have  been  heard on 08.08.2013 by the Bench since  Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  Chandramauli  Kr.  Prasad was a member of the said Bench  and  instead  the  judicial  norm  and  propriety  required  that  the  matter  should have been listed before another  Bench  in  order  to  maintain  the  consistency and the propriety and also  in the interest of justice.

iii. BECAUSE it is further relevant to point  out that Shri Ardendumauli  Kr. Prasad,  Advocate was engaged by the Petitioner  herein in 2005 for filing the Writ Petition  before this  Hon’ble Court  and the said  

2

Page 3

petition was filed by his counsel through  Shri Kishan Datta, Advocate On Record  and the same was duly argued by  his  above  noted  counsel  and  hence  considering this aspect also the petition  should  not  have  been  heard  by  the  Bench  on  08.08.2013  and  hence  the  impugned order deserves to be set aside  and  the  SLP  deserves  to  be  heard  afresh.

iv. BECAUSE it would be more appropriate  and proper and also in order to maintain  the dignity of this Hon’ble Court if  the  present  Review Petition  is  allowed and  the SLP is heard afresh.”

The  petitioner  has  stated  that  Special  Leave  Petition  

(Criminal)    No. 2817 of 2011 (Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P.  

& Ors.) was listed on 27.07.2012 and on that date this Court  

passed the following order:

“List  before  a  Bench  of  which  Hon’ble  Mr.  Chandramauli  Kr.  Prasad  is  not  a  member.”

Aforesaid special leave petition was filed by the petitioner  

challenging  the  Order  dated  7th March,  2011  passed  by  the  

Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011.  Writ  

Petition  No.  111 of  2011 was  filed  by  the  petitioner,  an Ex.  

3

Page 4

Member  of  Legislative  Assembly,  acting  as  next  friend,  for  

issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for production  

of a young girl of 22 years and her parents alleging that Shri  

Rahul  Gandhi,  Member  of  Parliament,  had  confined  them  in  

illegal detention.   He had also sworn an affidavit in support of  

the  writ  petition.   It  contained  wild  allegations/insinuations  

against  Shri  Rahul  Gandhi  and  questioned  the  virtue  and  

modesty of the young girl of 22 years.   While dismissing the  

Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011, Allahabad High Court imposed an  

exemplary costs of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh only) on  

the petitioner.   

This  Court  granted  leave  and  ultimately  dismissed  the  

Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2012 arising out of Special Leave  

Petition (Criminal) No. 2817 of 2011, by judgment dated 18th  

October, 2012 (Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013)  

2 SCC 398).  While doing so, the Court observed as follows:

“61.1 Writ  Petition  No.  111  of  2011  was  based  upon  falsehoods,  was  an  abuse  of  process of court and was driven by malice and  political vendetta.  Thus, while dismissing this  petition, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5  

4

Page 5

lakhs  upon  the  next  friend,  costs  being  payable to Respondent 6.”

Petitioner  filed  application  for  review  of  the  aforesaid  

Order and naturally,  when the Review Petition (Criminal) No.  

409 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2012 was posted for  

consideration, Prasad J. declined to hear the review application.  

The said review petition has been dismissed by order dated 27th  

August, 2013.  

It is relevant here to state that  Prasad, J. did not hear  

the special leave petition as it concerned the petitioner but he  

did so on account of  a  counsel’s representation  in the matter  

before the High Court.  Said counsel surely did not represent  

the petitioner in the special leave petition.

From the aforesaid it is evident that the subject matters in  

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5911 of 2013 and Review  

Petition (Criminal) No. 409 of 2013,  which one of us (Prasad,  

J.) declined to hear, are not even remotely connected with the  

issue in the present case.  Even at the cost of repetition, we  

may herein observe that those cases related to the allegation  

5

Page 6

made by the petitioner about the illegal detention of a young  

girl by Shri Rahul Gandhi and preventing her from filing a writ  

petition, whereas in the present case, petitioner sought stay of  

his conviction under Section 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147  

of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled  

Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act,  

1989.  It  is  relevant  here to state that   in the special  leave  

petition,  the  petitioner  has  not  even  whispered  these   facts,  

which he has stated in the review petition. Therefore, there was  

no reason whatsoever for Prasad J. not to hear the special leave  

petition preferred against the order refusing to stay conviction.

As regards the plea that Shri  Ardhendumauli  Kr.  Prasad  

argued  in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.  485  of  2005,  which  was  

dismissed by this Court on 30.09.2005, and hence one of us  

(Prasad J.) ought not to have heard the special leave petition  

filed by the petitioner  against  the order  refusing to  stay the  

conviction, it may be stated that Shri Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad  

is the son of one of us, Prasad J. and had been practising in this  

Court  much  before  the  elevation  of  Prasad  J.   Shri  

Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad was engaged by the petitioner in a  

6

Page 7

writ petition of 2005, which was dismissed by this Court on 30th  

September,  2005  i.e.  about  five  years  prior  to  elevation  of  

Prasad J. Subject matter of that writ petition has nothing to do  

with this case.  Further, nobody pointed out to the Bench when  

the special leave petition preferred against the refusal to stay  

the  conviction  was  placed  for  consideration  that  Shri  

Ardhendumauli  Kr.  Prasad  has  represented  the  cause  of  the  

petitioner  in  any  case.   Moreover,  the  said  case  has  no  co-

relation at all with the present review petition.   Notwithstanding  

that, had it been brought to the notice of the Court that the son  

of a Judge constituting the Bench represented the cause of the  

petitioner in an earlier proceeding, though nothing to do with  

the present case, perhaps Prasad J. would not have heard the  

matter.   Petitioner has not done so.  He had taken the chance  

and when the order has gone adverse to him, he is digging out  

fanciful reasons to seek review of the Order.

Nothing has been said on the merit of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the  

grounds urged by the petitioner for review of the order lacks  

7

Page 8

bona fide and his  attempt is  to seek review of  the order by  

resorting to untenable and malafide grounds.  He seems to be in  

the habit of making false and wild allegations.   

Accordingly,  we  do  not  find  any  merit  in  the  present  

review petition and dismiss it with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be  

paid by the petitioner to the Supreme Court Employees Welfare  

Fund.  The petitioner shall deposit the aforesaid amount within  

one month from the date of this order.  If he fails to do the  

same within the time stipulated, the Registry of this Court shall  

inform to the District Magistrate, Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh), to  

recover the said amount from the petitioner as an arrears of  

land revenue and deposit the said amount in the Supreme Court  

Employees Welfare Fund without any delay.

           …... ……………..............................J

 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

    ……………….............................J    [KURIAN JOSEPH]

8

Page 9

NEW DELHI February 07, 2014.

9

Page 10

1