KOMAL GOPAL SINHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed that the remarks of character assassination of petitioner reproduced in paragraph no.3 of order dtd. 14/6/2016 passed by the Sessions Court be expunged. The petitioner has appeared in person. Although several other prayers are urged in the petition, the petitioner has stated that she would not press prayer clauses 'a' and 'b' in the petition.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted that, she is the practicing Advocate since 22/8/2015. Criminal Revision Application No. 187 of 2014 was preferred by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Thane challenging order dtd. 13/7/2014 passed by Learned J.M.F.C. Vashi, Navi Mumbai in M.A. No.787 of 2014, the said Revision Application has been dismissed by the Sessions Court Thane vide order dtd. 14/6/2016. However, in paragraph No.3 of the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has reproduced the averments which amounts to character assassination of the petitioner. In paragraph No.3 it is stated that, it appears from said application that petitioner became friendly with applicant and she revealed that, she had such relationship with other professor against whom, she had levelled allegations of sexual intercourse with promise to marry. The applicant kept the distance from her. The petitioner submits that, it was not necessary to reproduce whatever contended by opponent in application preferred before Lower Court. The Revision Application was preferred by petitioner challenging the order passed by the Lower Court in an application for return of the vehicle preferred by respondent which was allowed by the Lower Court. While deciding Revision Application, it was not necessary to make any observations casting aspersions on the character of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in similar situation the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 4171 of 2014 for expunging certain observations made by Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in the application preferred by the accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with First Information Report (for short "FIR") registered by the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge while allowing the applications preferred by the accused made certain observations, which were per se defamatory. The petitioner in the said petition has submitted that such observations should be expunged from the said order. The accused has no right to resort to character assassination by making baseless and groundless allegations against the petitioner and that the same should not have been reproduced by the Sessions Court while deciding the application of anticipatory bail. This Court by order dtd. 18/11/2014 had expunged such remarks. It is submitted that the observations reproduced in paragraph No.3 are required to be expunged. FIR was registered by petitioner against respondent No.2. Externment proceedings were initiated against him. Action was taken against respondent No.2 by Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India vide order dtd. 13/2/2016. Anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 was cancelled by Supreme Court.

(3.) Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that the petition is devoid of merits. Whatever reflected in the order dtd. 14/6/2016 is part of record. Petitioner had lodged three different FIR's. Externment order issued against respondent No.2has been revoked by appellate authority. The petitioner is filing false cases. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 produced the copy of Criminal Application No. 787 of 2014 preferred before the Court of Learned J.M.F.C. for return of vehicle. She has also produced the evidence of the petitioner in Sessions Case No.477 of 2014, order revoking the externment order, order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 in C.R. No.4 of 2014. Reliance is placed on order dtd. 19/4/2012 passed by High Court of Delhi in the case of Ravinder Kumar Tyagi V/s. State wherein it is observed that there is no principle or rule of law that the statement in the Court by police personnel has to be necessarily disbelieved. It may or may not be believed no Court can assume that every statement of Policeman is necessarily false.