[ad_1]
footing with the 8 other in-laws i.e. brother-in-law/sisters-in-law
against whom the proceeding was not quashed in Criminal
Petition No. 101599 of 2021. Though the order refusing to quash
the proceeding against some of the in-laws was passed earlier, it
is inexplicable why there is no reference to the said order in the
impugned order quashing proceeding against the respondent-
husband. It was incumbent on the Judge while quashing the
proceeding against the respondent husband to refer to the earlier
decision of the co-ordinate bench and distinguish the reasons
therein to arrive at a different conclusion. Failure to do so infracts
judicial propriety and discipline. Consistency in judicial outcomes
is the hallmark of a responsible judiciary. Inconsistent decisions
coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce
litigation to a punter‟s game. It gives rise to various insidious
sharp practices like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of
justice. Impugned order suffers from the vice of judicial caprice
and arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside also on this score.”
[ad_2]
Source link