Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Daanish Haque – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
CRAN 1 of 2023 In CRR 2565 of 2019
Decided on : 06-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for recalling order (Para 1) |
| 2. opposition's objections and reliance on prior judgements (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. facts relevant to the case timeline (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner's misconceptions regarding dismissal (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal principles regarding recall and inherent powers (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's observations on merits and justice (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. judicial justification for recall of the order (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. discussion on section 362 and its application (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. interest of justice in hearing the case (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. conclusion and final order (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present application (CRAN 1 of 2023) has been preferred by the petitioner/accused praying for recalling of the Order dated July 19, 2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, thereby dismissing CRR No. 2565 of 2019 ( Daanish Haque v. Central Bureau of Investigation ) on the prayer of the petitioner as ‘Not Pressed’.
2. The Opposite Party/CBI has strongly objected to the said prayer, stating that the prayer of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Their further case is that the application for recall of order is barred by limitation (Article 122 of the Act) and has relied upon the following Judgments:-
ii. Behari Lal vs Dharam Vir (Dead) by LRS. and Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 679, (Paragraph 3).
iii. Kanai Lal Shaw vs Bhattu Shaw, 1960 SCC OnLine Cal 176 , (Paragraph 3 & 6).
iv. S.C. Sons (P) Ltd. vs Sm. Brahma Devi Sharma and Ors., 1986 SCC OnLine Cal 44, (Paragraph 9 & 66).
3. The opposite party (CBI) has further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case.
4. It is further stated that Section 362 of Cr.P.C. is applicable to the petitioner’s case/prayer, and to support the said contention, the following Judgments are relied upon:-
II. 2005 (1) C Cr LR (Cal) 598, Harjeet Singh Versus The State of West Bengal , (Paragraph 6 to 8, 17, 18, 33, 49, 52, 54).
III. (2001) 1 SCC 169, Hari Singh Mann Versus Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., (Paragraph 9 to 11).
IV. (2003) 11 SCC 210, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Gopal Krishna Sengupta & Ors., (Paragraph 19 and 25).
5. The Opposite Party has thus submitted that the order sought to be recalled is not permissible and cannot be reopened.
6. On the other hand, the petitioner has relied upon the following Judgments:-
ii. Raghuvira and Ors. vs State of U.P. , 1990 SCC OnLine All 292.
iii. Murti Dhar Singh and Ors. vs Vijendra Singh Jafa , (2002) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 469.
iv. Asit Kumar Kar vs State of West Bengal and Ors. , (2009) 2 SCC 703.
v. Recreation Advertising Services vs State of West Bengal , 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 1394.
vi. Vishnu Agarwal vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , (2011) 14 SCC 813.
vii. Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj vs State of U.P. , 2015 SCC OnLine All 8899.
viii. Ganesh Patel vs Umakant Rajoria , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2050.
7. From the materials on record the following facts are evident and relevant:-
(ii) CRR 2565/19 was filed on 06.09.2019 praying for setting aside of the orders dated 18.07.2019 and 26.08.2019 passed in the said proceedings.
(iii) From the copies of the order sheets in the said proceedings filed by way of a supplementary affidavit, it appears that Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) was submitted on 18.08.2020, when the Court fixed the next date for bringing order of Hon’ble High Court and hearing.
(iv) Vide order dated 18.01.2021, the trial Court observed that though Charge Sheet had been submitted, cog
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.
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.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has no power to recall or modify its order under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, except in specific circumstances such a....
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
