LexHARI SINGH MANN versus HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HARi SINGH MANN A v. HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 1, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 482-lnherent powers-Order passed under-Review of- Permissibi/ity-Held; Not permissible-No review of order is contemplated C under Cr.P.C.-After disposal of the main petition issuance of fresh direction in a miscellaneous petition is unwarranted, not referable to any statutory provision and is an abuse of the process of court. Section 362-Judgment or final order-Review or alteration of-After final disposal-Permissibility-Held; Not permissible-The court becomes D functus officio once the final disposal order is signed-Such an order can neither be reviewed nor altered except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Respondent No. 1, a practising Advocate, filed a petition under Section E 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the High Court for directions. A Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the petition with certain directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). After the disposal of the aforesaid petition respondent No. I again filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court for fresh directions. F The same Single Judge, without notice to the appellants, directed the SSP not to comply with the earlier directions. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashing the latter order of the High Court on the ground of its being illegal, against the well established principles of law and being a review of the earlier G order which was not permissible under the criminal law. The High Court dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The impugned orders were passed completely ignoring the H 313 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A basic principles of criminal law. No review of an order is contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. After the disposal of the main petition, there was no lis pending in the.High Court wherein the respondent could have filed any miscellaneous petitioP. The filing of a miscellaneous petition not referable to any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the rules of the Court cannot be resorted to as a substitute of fresh litigation. The record of the proceedings shows that directions in the case filed by the respondent were issued without notice to any of the appellants. Merely because respondent No. 1 was an Advocate, did no.t justify the issuance of directions at his request without notice to the other side. The impugned orders could not have been passed by the High Court under its inherent power under C Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The practice of filing miscellaneous petitions after the disposal of the main case and issuance of fresh directions in such miscellaneous petitions _by the High Court are unwarranted, not referable to any statutory provision and in substance an abuse of the process of the court. (318-C-E) D State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala, AIR (1979) SC 87, relied on. Ta/ab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR (1958) SC 376, held inapplicable. E Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P., (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 871 and Suptd. and Remembrancer of legal Affairs WB. v. Mohan Singh, AIR (1975) SC 1002, cited. 2.1. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same F except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the.said Court in the absence ofa specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the sanie relied unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent G jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical, error. f 320-A-B, CJ 2.2. The impugned order of the High Court which is not referable to H any statutory provisions, having been passed in a review petition in a criminal ,. HARi SINGH MANN v. HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA [SETHI, J.] 315 case, is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 1320-EI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.