Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Motiur Rahman Laskar, S/o Late Anor Ali Laskar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By The Ld. – Respondent
| 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 re
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
