Back
B. R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Vikram Bakshi – Appellant
Versus
R. P. Khosla – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal assails the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2021 (hereinafter “Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter, “High Court”), whereby it recalled its earlier Judgment dated 13.08.2020 which had disposed of Criminal Miscellaneous (Co.) No. 4 of 2019 filed under Section 340 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) against the Appellants for prosecution of offences of perjury and directed that the said application be listed for hearing. In the Judgment dated 13.08.2020, the High Court declined to interfere in the matter in view of the directions of this Court in Judgment dated 08.05.2014 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 6873 of 2010 whereby dispute between the parties in relation to their Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 (hereinafter “CP No. 114 of 2007”) and other related matters arising out of it was to be decided by Company Law Board (hereinafter “CLB”).
3. The Appellants before us are Mr. Vikram Bakshi, Mr. Vinod Surha and Mr. Wadia Prakash while Mr. R.P. Khosla is the Contesting Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anand Mohan Mishra is Proforma Respondent No. 2.
4. Briefly, the facts
(1) Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Section 362 of Cr.P.C. explicitly prohibits court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or revie....
A court cannot review its own judgment once signed, except to correct clerical errors, and inherent powers to recall judgments are limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
The court clarified that a dismissal for default does not amount to a final order, allowing recall and reinstatement for hearings on merits under inherent powers of the High Court.
Petitions dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a bona fide reason for absence, circumventing the prohibition of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
An application for recall of judgment is maintainable as a procedural review, but the specific bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. prevents the court from reviewing a judgment passed on merit after hearing....
Practice and Procedure - Seeking review and recall of judgment - Court had declined to interfere on account of pendency of Co. Pet. judgment is recalled on this ground alone. Court had not adjudicate....
The High Court lacks the power to review or recall its orders after they have been signed, as it becomes functus officio and such actions are barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution without addressing the merits; the High Court cannot alter its judgment post-signature except for clerical errors.
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to recall a judgment once signed without encountering exceptional circumstances, emphasizing strict adherence to the principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
