Revisional Power Can't Be Invoked With Unclean Hands: Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection Of Caste Abuse Complaint In Counterblast To Electricity Theft Case
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court rejecting the complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not approached the court with 'clean hands' and was accused of theft of electricity. Justice Samir Dave opined: "It is settled law that the revisional powers of the High Court can only be exercised to prevent...
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court rejecting the complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not approached the court with 'clean hands' and was accused of theft of electricity.
Justice Samir Dave opined:
"It is settled law that the revisional powers of the High Court can only be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The process of law can be invoked by a principled and really aggrieved person who approaches the court with clean hands."
"The process of law cannot be allowed to be abused by a person who is facing trial for theft of Electricity and who himself avers such facts in his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as indicate that he is guilty of committing theft of Electricity; by making baseless allegations against the officials of a PGVCL without any supporting material or evidence. Apparently, the revisionist has filed that complaint in order to put a counter pressure on the officials for taking undue advantage in plural cases of theft of electricity lodged against the complainant."
The instant revision application was filed under Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC praying for the stay of the impugned order by the Sessions Judge.
The Petitioner was a Sarpanch of the relevant Gram Panchayat and alleged that officers from the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited had visited her house and while checking her electricity meter, hurled casteist abuses at her.
The trial court rejected her complaint after perusing the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (SC-ST cell), statement of the complainant and other witnesses.
The Petitioner insisted that trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements and that it was her duty to file the complaints as a Sarpanch.
Per contra, the APP averred that as per affidavit of the petitioner herself, no incident was happened in presence of the witnesses and that the complaint was filed by the Petitioner as a 'counterblast' to the FIR lodged against her for theft of electricity.
Justice Dave concluded that the supplementary electricity bill was worth Rs. 54,000 and that the Petitioner's house had committed theft of electricity. There was also no evidence of the alleged incident involving abuse against the Petitioner. Accordingly, no prima facie case was made out against the PGVCL officers.
Citing the limited revisional powers of the High Court which can be exercised only where there is an abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice, Justice Dave deemed it not to interfere with the impugned order. "There is total contradiction in the complaint filed by the petitioner and the representation made before the concerned authority," court said.
Case No.: R/CR.RA/762/2022
Case Title: GANGABEN PARBATBHAI VAZA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 345
Click Here To Read/Download Order