Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Pranay Krishna – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recall of ex-parte orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal arguments on recall applications (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's inherent powers under cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. dismissing the application under section 482 (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. By means of the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought recall of an order dated 24.03.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Crl. Revision No.584 of 2016 whereby the revision filed by the opposite party No.2 was allowed after hearing submissions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate, recording that nobody had put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 (the applicant in the present case). The learned Counsel for the applicant is seeking recall of the order dated 24.03.2022 on the ground that notice of the revision had not been served on the applicant personally and, therefore, the applicant could not appear in that revision and the order was passed ex-parte agains
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to set aside ex-parte orders without following proper procedure in the original case.
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.
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.
A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution without addressing the merits; the High Court cannot alter its judgment post-signature except for clerical errors.
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.
The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to revive quashed FIRs, as the judiciary becomes functus officio post-judgment, with an absolute bar to altering such judgments except for....
Even though the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the Court Under Section 439(2) of the Code, it does not vest the power of review in the Court which granted bail. Even....
The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not permit review of bail orders post-judgment, as mandated by Section 362 Cr.P.C., maintaining the distinction between interlocut....
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
