Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Motiur Rahman Laskar, S/o Late Anor Ali Laskar - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Ld. Pp, And Ors. - Respondents
Crl.Pet./1088 of 2023
Decided On : 11-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the nature of the application for restoration of a dismissed criminal petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contentions regarding communication failure between counsel and client leading to alleged erroneous case withdrawal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. application of section 362 of the crpc; the court becomes functus officio after signing a final order, prohibiting review or alteration except for clerical errors. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to exercise review powers under section 482 of the crpc due to statutory restriction. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) with prayer for restoration of Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, by recalling or modifying or cancelling the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 461/2017.
2. The petitioner in this case is Sri Motiur Rahman Laskar and the respondents are the State of Assam, the Divisional Forest Officer and Md. Nurul Haque, arrayed as respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 respectively. The name of the respondent No. 2 Md. Maklisur Rahman @ Maklish Mia was struck off vide the order dated 18.06.2024 on submission by the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 2 (Two) petitions arising out of the same cause of action being Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/2017 was pending in this Court.
4. Vide Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, the petitioner has challenged the illegality of the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Revision No. 46/2015, as well as impugned order dated 10.08.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Revision No. 41/2015.
5. Vide Criminal Revision No. 386/2017, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi in connection with GR Case No. 1173/2015, corresponding to Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 435/2015. In both the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/2017, the issue is relating to an elephant and its calf and for zimma of the same. Mr. R. Dhar was the engaged counsel in both the above mentioned criminal petitions.
6. It is further submitted that Mr. R. Dhar, who was in fact engaged by the petitioner in both the petitions, appeared in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 on 15.12.2022, 02.05.2023 and 18.05.2023, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner requested Mr. R. Dhar to be led by another advocate in both the petitions and accordingly, Mr. A.K. Purkayastha on the request of Mr. R. Dhar appeared in both the petitions. It is further submitted that it is a matter of record that the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 was dismissed on withdrawal on consideration of the prayer made by Mr. R Dhar and the said withdrawal was not in fact known to the other set of advocates Mr. A.K. Purkayastha and Ms. R. Rongmei, who were not aware of the said dismissal of the Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 on withdrawal vide order dated 01.12.2022.
7. It is further submitted that Mr. R. Dhar, as instructed by the petitioner conducted both the cases as would be evident from the orders dated 01.12.2022, 15.12.2022, 02.05.2023 and 18.05.2023 passed in connection with Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017.
8. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner could not contact Mr. R. Dhar, during the time when he was ailing and the petitioner was not aware of any such development relating to the withdrawal of the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. The petitioner also had to undergo urgent surgery and he was confined to bed owing to his acute physical ailment. Even during the post-operation period, he was unable to contact Mr. R. Dhar and neither did the petitioner nor his engaged counsel were in a po
Once a court signs a final order, it becomes functus officio and is statutorily barred from reviewing, recalling, or altering the order, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, even when e....
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.
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.
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
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.
Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application is final order, revisable under Section 397 CrPC before Sessions Court; writ under Article 226 not entertained due to efficacious alternate r....
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process when complaints are motivated by civil disputes.
AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 451 CR.P.C. IS NOT AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER AND IT DOES NOT ATTRACT THE BAR UNDER SECTION 397(2) CR.P.C. AND REVISION UNDER SECTION 397(1) CR.P.C. IS MAINTAINABLE.
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
