Very Important point
There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Inherent power of High Court—Review of order passed under Section 482—Permissibility—Petition under Section 482 for registering complaint—Court giving direction to enquire into complaint and if allegations are true register complaint and if found false to prosecute petition under Section 182 IPC—Subsequent miscellaneous petition by petitioner that he filed criminal complaint in Court which was taken into cognizance and therefore direction be given to police not to act upon earlier directions—Court ordering not to comply with earlier direction and not to file complaint under Section 182 IPC—Respondent (Appellant herein) filing miscellaneous petition to quash order in miscellaneous petition—Dismissal—Impugned orders in two miscellaneous petitions against principles of criminal law—No review of order contemplated under criminal procedure—Power cannot be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P.C.—Orders in miscellaneous petitions quashed.
       The impugned orders were passed completely ignoring the basic principles of criminal law. No review of an order is contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the disposal of the main petition on 7.1.1999, there was no lis pending in the High Court wherein the respondent could have filed any miscellaneous petition. The filing of a miscellaneous petition not referable to any provision of 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 produced before us shows that directions in the case filed by the respondents were issued apparently without notice to any of the respondents in the petition. Merely because the respondent No.1 was an Advocate, did not justify the issuance of directions at his request without notice of the other side. The impugned orders dated 30th April, 1999 and 21st July, 1999 could not have been passed by the High Court under its inherent power under 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 the abuse of the process of the Court. (Para 8)
       There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code. (Para 9)
       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 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 of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent 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. (Para 10)
       The impugned orders of the High Court dated 30.4.1999 and 21.7.1999 which is not referable to any statutory provisions having been passed apparently in a review petition in a criminal case is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.4.1999 and 21.7.1999 are set aside restoring its original order dated 7.1.1999. (Para 11)
       Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgment

Sethi, J.—Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 1 who is a practising Advocate filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana with prayers :

“(i) Call for the records of the case for the purpose of perusal,

(ii) direct the respondent No. 6 i.e. Station House Officer of Police Station, Kharar, District Roopnagar as well as Senior Superintendent of Police, Roopnagar (respondent No. 3) to register a case on the basis of complaint dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) lodged by the petitioner as well as MLR dated 11.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) lodged by the petitioner as well as MLR dated 11.12.1998 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner without any further delay.

(iii) direct any judicial officer to hold inquiry/investigation in the aforesaid case in view of the serious allegations levelled by the petitioner against senior Police Officer of District Roopnagar.

(iv) direct the respondent No. 2 (DGP Punjab) to immediately transfer the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and Inspector Jasdev Singh, who is presently posted as SHO of Police Station Kharar, District Roopnagar, so that free, fair and impartial investigation/inquiry may be conducted by some judicial officer in view of the peculiar facts of the case under reference.”

3. In his petition the respondent No.1 contended that he was conducting several civil/criminal cases filed by M/s. Falcon Breeders Private Limited as well as its Directors against the appellant and respondent No.8. It was alleged that with a motive to compel the respondent No.1-Advocate to withdraw as counsel of the said company and its Directors, the appellant and respondent No.8 hatched a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in false and fabricated criminal cases. They were alleged to have mixed up with one Ranjit Singh, Deputy District Attorney (Legal) attached with the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Roopnagar, Punjab and managed the registration of a case against the respondent No.1 and his clients being FIR No.151 dated 10.12.1988 at Police Station Kharar for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. In furtherance of the alleged conspiracy a raid was conducted on 11.10.1988 in the house of one Ravnit Singh, a client of the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 1 reached at the house of Ravnit Singh, when called, and found there a contingent of police. It is alleged that the moment the respondent No.1 came out of his car, he was roughed up and thrown in an open truck. He was taken to Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh where DDR No. 24 dated 11.10.1988 was registered. He further alleged that thereafter he was whisked away to Police Station, Kharar. His arms were tied behind his back and a piece of cloth was tied around his eyes. He was thereafter taken to an unknown destination and was pushed in an isolated room where the appellant herein and respondent No.8 were already waiting. He was subjected to criminal torture by using third degree methods for about 2-3 hours. The respondent No.6 was also alleged to have caused injuries upon the said Advocate with a sharp knife below the knees, without provocation. Red chillies are stated to have been sprinkled on his fresh wounds with the object to harm, injure and terrorise him. He was threatened to be eliminated by the police personnel and the appellant. After the torture process, the eyes of the respondent No.1 were again blind-folded and he was brought back to Police Station, Kharar where his wife Mrs. Gursharan Kaur had reached by that time. Upon her raising hue and cry he was sent to Civil Hospital, Kharar for conduct of his medical examination where he has examined by Dr. Balwinder Singh. He was stated to have been released on 11.10.1998 after about 3 hours by the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kharar. He claimed to have filed a written complaint in Police Station, Kharar for registration of FIR against the alleged culprits. The copies of the complaint are stated to have been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (2)