Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Arun Kumar Bhattacharya
IZHARUN KHATOON @ NESHA - Appellant
Versus
MAQSOOD @ MUKSUD ALAM - Respondent
C. R. R. 1442 Of 2001
Decided On : 02/08/2006
reviewing said judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error — Code of Criminal Procedure does not
authorize High Court to review its judgment or order passed in exercise of its appellate or revisional or Original jurisdiction — Prohibition contained in Section 362 is absolute after judgment is signed and even High Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same — Since under garb of recalling and modification, in his strenuous attempt, petitioner virtually assaulted order on merits treating Court as an appellate authority, against order passed by a judge having concurrent jurisdiction, which was not permissible — Hence petition being devoid of merit, was dismissed.(Paras 5, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
1.An Order of maintenance
was obtained by second wife of petitioner herein in the instant case u/s 125 CrPC on 26.7.2000. Order set aside in revision was reversed by Court on 4.2.2002.
2.Present Petition has been filed by petitioner for recall and modification of order passed on 4.2.2002.
3.Findings of the Court: The Court held that Section 362 CrPC prohibits Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or reviewing said judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorize High Court to review its judgment or order passed in exercise of its appellate or revisional or Original jurisdiction. Prohibition contained in Section 362 is absolute after judgment is signed and even High Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 has no authority or
jurisdiction to alter/review the same. Since under garb of recalling and modification, in his strenuous attempt, petitioner virtually assaulted order on merits treating Court as an appellate authority, against order passed by a judge having concurrent jurisdiction, which was not permissible. Hence application being devoid of merit, was dismissed.
Result : Application dismissed.
ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, J.
( 1 ) A short paragraph might perhaps have been enough for disposal of the present case, but a short-cut is a wrong-cut where peoples justice is involved, and so it persuaded my pen to enter into a bit detail, but before I open the discussion, the background history leading to the above application need be stated: the second wife of the petitioner viz. Izharun Khatoon @ Nesha obtained an order of maintenance @ Rs. 400/- p. m. under section 125 Cr. PC on 26. 07. 2000 against the petitioner in M. R. Case no. 100/94 from the Court of Ld. SDJM, islampur which was set aside in Criminal revision No. 8/2000 by the Ld. Additional sessions Judge, Islampur on 26. 04. 2001 on the basis of an observation of the Ld. SDJM, Islampur in a judgment in G. R. Case No. 57/92 under sections 323/498a IPC that the de facto complainant is not a married wife of accused/o. P. The above order was reversed by this Court in CRR No. 1442 of 2001 on 04. 02. 2002.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has sought for recalling and modification of the said order dated 04. 02. 2002 passed by the honble Mr. Justice N. A. Chowdhury.
( 3 ) MR. Das, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, on referring the cases of Pranab kumar Chakraborty v. Kumkum Chakra-borty and Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Union of India contended that as there are certain errors apparent on the face of the record, his client has sought for recalling and modification of the above order of this Court. Mr. Rahaman, Ld. Counsel for the O. P. , on the other hand, submitted that the marriage between the parties having been duly proved which has been elaborately discussed, the present application having no merit deserves to be dismissed.
( 4 ) TO start with, none of the above two decisions so cited by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, which deal with the scope of review under the Civil Procedure code, has any manner of application in the present case.
( 5 ) FROM the trend of argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, it appeared that under the garb of recalling and modification, in his strenuous attempt he virtually assaulted the order on merits treating this Court as an appellate authority against the order passed by a Judge having concurrent jurisdiction, which is not at all permissible.
( 6 ) NEVERTHELESS, Mr. Das appears to have overlooked the specific provision of section 362 Cr. PC which prohibits the court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to review its judgment or order passed in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original jurisdiction. This prohibition is complete and no Criminal Court can review its judgment and order after it is signed, as was held in the case of State of kerala v. M. M. M. Nayar. Similar is the observation in the cases of M. S. T. Simrikhia v. Dolly Mukherjee and Mati Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which stand for the proposition that the prohibition contained in section 362 is absolute after the judgment is signed and even the high Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same.
( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the application cran No. 1241 / 2002 being devoid of any merit be dismissed. Application dismissed.
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
