Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
TEJ PRATAP TIWARI
Parvez Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
Ref : Crl. Misc. Application for Restoration of the application and the Recall of the order dated 30.05.2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and perused the records.
2. This application for recall of the order dated 30.05.2024 has been filed with the prayer to restore the Criminal Misc. Case No.18737 of 2023 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) (Parvez Khan vs. State of U.P. and another) at its original number and status.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 30.05.2024 due to technical problem, the counsel for the applicant could not get the list of listed case and due to this reason, he could not attend the court and could not mention for adjournment of the case, consequently, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. In support of this contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the various judgements, which shall be taken into consideration later on.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that although there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of a criminal case like Ord
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.
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....
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 court upheld that representation by Amicus Curiae suffices for fair hearing, dismissing the recall application for lack of legal grounds.
Litigants should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel; allegations of professional misconduct must be addressed to the Bar Council.
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.
The judgment cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, as per the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Wrong nomenclature or erroneous citation of a provision of law cannot debar a party from having its application considered by the Court if it is otherwise legally maintainable.
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.
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
