LexNAZMA versus JAVED @ ANJUM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2012] 9 S.C.R. 826 NAZ MA v. JAVED @ ANJUM (Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2012) OCTOBER 19, 2012) [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND .DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Practice and Procedure - Miscellaneous application - Filed in a disposed of criminal writ petition - Entertained by C High Court - Propriety of - Held: High Court committed effor iii entertaining the application - Once the writ petition is disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical D errors. High Court - Power of - Under Articles 226 and 227 and s. 482 Cr.P.C. - To interfere with orders granting or rejecting bail - Held: Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 and uls. 482 are exceptional in nature and to be used in E most exceptional cases - Powers uls. 439 is a/so discretionary and required to be exercised with great care and caution - Powers to grant or reject the bail is within the powers of regular criminal court and the High Court not justified in usurping their powers in its inherent jurisdiction - Code of Criminal F Procedure, 1973 - s. 439 and 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227. Brothers of the appellant lodged FIR against respondent No. 1 and his family which was registered u/ G SS. 498-A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC and SS. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. H Respondent No. 1 and his family filed separate Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition before High Court 826 NAZMA v. JAVED @ ANJUM 827 without making the appellant party to that. Writ petition A was disposed of by High Court staying the arrest of the respondent No. 1 and his family members till the conclusion of investigation or submission of report u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. High Court also directed respondent No. 1 to deposit Rs. 2000/- per month to be withdrawn by the B appellant. The police submitted its report closing the investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. C Respondent No. 1 filed an application in the disposed of writ petition. The High· Court allowed the application extending the stay of arrest until the conclusion of trial and continued the direction to deposit Rs. 2000/-. The appellant filed the present petition challenging the order of High Court in the application. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the criminal miscellaneous E application in a disposed of criminal writ petition. Once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors. In the instant case, the High Court has entertained a petition in a disposed of criminal writ petition and granted reliefs, which is impermissible in law. In spite of the clear pronouncement of law by this Court, still, the High Courts F are passing similar orders, which practice has to be deprecated in the strongest terms. [Paras 11, 12 and 13) G [833-D; 834-E; 835-A-B] 2. The High Court has committed a grave error also 1 by passing an order not to arrest 1st respondent till the conclusion of the trial. The High Courts are entertaining H 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R A writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, so also under Section 482 CrPC and passing and interfering with various orders granting or rejecting request for bail, which is the function of ordinary Criminal Court. The jurisdiction vested on the High Court B under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as well as Section 482 CrPC are all exceptional in nature and to be used in most exceptional cases. The jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is also discretionary and it is required to be exercised with great care and caution. Grant of bail c or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular Criminal Court and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, not justified in usurping their powers. [Paras 12 and 13) [834-E-H; 835-A] Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors. D (2001) 1 SCC169: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 313 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 313 Relied on Para 11 E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.08.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at All
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.