Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The distinction between interlocutory and final orders is crucial; only certain intermediate or quasi-final orders are revisable under Section 397 or revisional jurisdiction, but not under Section 482 ["Ashu Jain VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Jitendrabhai Parshottambhai Patel VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["Prahalad Singh and etc. v. State of M.P. - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Rakesh Awasthi VS Ritesh Sharma - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Dilip Kumar @ Dr. Dilip Kumar Sharma @ Dilip Sharma VS State of Bihar - Patna"]- ["Ravi Bharti S/o Baisakhu Bharti VS State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Nasir Khan VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Ramani M. P. v. State of Kerala and Another - Supreme Court"]- ["Ashu Jain VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Sukhjeet Sandhu vs State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Colonel Sukhjeet Sandhu VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"]
In the realm of criminal law in India, navigating the avenues for challenging court orders can be complex. A common query arises: Can a final order also be challenged in 482? This refers to whether a final order in criminal proceedings can be contested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers High Courts with inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. While final orders are typically binding, there are narrow exceptions. This post explores the legal framework, limitations, and key case law to provide clarity.
Generally, a final order in criminal proceedings cannot be routinely challenged under Section 482 CrPC. However, it may be challenged in exceptional circumstances, such as when it causes irreparable prejudice, results in manifest injustice, or amounts to an abuse of process. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 are not meant to re-open or review final orders, especially given the prohibition in Section 362 CrPC against altering or reviewing final judgments, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. Arun Shankar Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 1999 6 Supreme 197Girish Kumar Suneja VS C. B. I. - 2017 5 Supreme 466Sanjeev Kumar Rasania VS Cbi - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 314
The Supreme Court has emphasized that these powers must be exercised sparingly to uphold the finality of judgments. Arun Shankar Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 1999 6 Supreme 197
Section 362 CrPC explicitly states that no court shall alter or review its final judgment or order after it is signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Supreme Court in Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee held: the inherent power of the High Court cannot be invoked to override the bar of review under Section 362. Arun Shankar Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 1999 6 Supreme 197 This reinforces that Section 482 cannot be a backdoor for review.
Courts must respect the finality to prevent endless litigation. Arun Shankar Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 1999 6 Supreme 197
Challenges may succeed if the final order:- Causes irreparable prejudice.- Leads to manifest injustice.- Constitutes abuse of process, e.g., lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.
In Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, the Court noted that while non-final orders like those taking cognizance are challengeable, final judgments demand proof of gross injustice. Arul Daniel VS Suganya - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 2521
The powers under Section 482 are to be exercised with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Aroon Purie VS Jayakumar Hiremath - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 1087Girish Kumar Suneja VS C. B. I. - 2017 5 Supreme 466
Not all orders are treated equally. Interlocutory or intermediate orders—such as those on interim maintenance or framing charges—are often challengeable under Section 482 because they lack finality. For instance, in a family court context, an interim maintenance order affects the right of a person drastically and substantially, hence, it cannot be treated as an interlocutory order. Nitish Kumar VS Neha Kumari - 2023 Supreme(HP) 471 Here, the court ruled that petitions under Section 482 against such orders from Family Courts may not be maintainable if alternatives like Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act exist.
Similarly, orders rejecting discharge applications or directing charge framing can be contested if they possess 'characteristics and trappings of finality,' adversely affecting valuable rights. Nitin Tiwari VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home - 2024 Supreme(All) 18
In contrast, purely final orders, once disposed of, are shielded unless exceptional circumstances arise. Section 482 fills the gap for orders that are neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. Kishanlal S/o Sh. Gokul VS State, Through Pp - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 632Aarif Khan @ Munder S/o Sh. Islamo @ Salamudeen Kaaji VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 742
These cases illustrate that while Section 482 is broad, it does not eclipse statutory bars or finality principles. Aarif Khan @ Munder S/o Sh. Islamo @ Salamudeen Kaaji VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 742
High Courts exercise Section 482 powers sparingly:- No merit review: Cannot re-examine evidence or facts.- Alternative remedies: Exhaust revisions under Section 397 first, unless barred.- Family Court Specificity: Prefer Section 19(4) over Section 482 for maintenance orders. Nitish Kumar VS Neha Kumari - 2023 Supreme(HP) 471
Routine challenges risk dismissal, as seen in petitions deemed 'virtually second applications.' Nitin Tiwari VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home - 2024 Supreme(All) 18
Courts urge restraint to avoid re-opening settled matters. Arun Shankar Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 1999 6 Supreme 197
While a final order can be challenged under Section 482 CrPC, it is permissible only in exceptional cases involving irreparable prejudice, manifest injustice, or abuse of process—not for routine review. Section 362 CrPC safeguards finality, and inherent powers serve justice, not revision. Girish Kumar Suneja VS C. B. I. - 2017 5 Supreme 466Arun Shankar Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 1999 6 Supreme 197
Key Takeaways:- Final orders: Rarely challengeable.- Interlocutory: More flexible.- Always prove exceptional grounds.
This post provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
#Section482CrPC #CriminalLaw #HighCourtPowers
A revision against a final order against which no appeal lies and a revision against an intermediate order or a quasi final order against which no appeal lies, is clearly maintainable under Section 397(1) of CrPC. ... It is also further held that in both, Amar Nath’s Case and Madhu Limaye’s Case, which is rendered by a Three Judge Bench, it is clarified that Section 482 of CrPC cannot be invoked to challenge such orders. ... High Court under Section 482#HL_E....
Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of S.482 of the Code. S.362, CrPC has extended the bar of review not only to judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment. ... S.362 prohibits re - opening of a final order except in the cases of clerical or arithmetical errors. Such being the position power under S.482 cannot be exercised to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits. ... 14. In the case of Har....
There may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order 43, Rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that, the orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. ... Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, which is not a final order and no appeal or revision lies against the same. The p....
of the final report. ... Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ... These two appeals have been filed by the appellant-complainant challenging the order dated 21.07.2022 by which the High Court had granted the prayer made by the respondents-accused to amend the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and challenging the order dated 22.07.2022 by which the High Court ... It was only when the concerned CJM after recording the statements of the complainant and eight witnesses, issued ....
In the present case, this Court has to decide, as to whether, against a final order passed by the Family Court, instead of filing criminal revision as provided under Section 19 of Act, 1984, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not. ... He also pointed out that against the very same judgment/order dated 03.03.2023, plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 has filed Criminal Revision No. 3148 f 2023, which is pending before this High Court. ... In between is a tertium quid, as Untwalia, J. has ....
It is well settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order either under Section 362 or under Section 482 of CrPC. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits. ... “482. ... Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerica....
482 Cr.P.C. for challenging such order. ... the principle “what is not a final order must be an interlocutory order” is neither warranted nor justified. ... the order passed under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a final order and that order can be altered later on, if the change of circumstance demands. ... It was held that the order of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was an in....
The power of the High Court can be exercised not only in terms of Section 482 of the Code but also in terms of Section 483 thereof. The said provision reads thus :- "483. ... Petition under Sections 528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC.) has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the learned ACJM, No.1, Bhilwara in Case No. ... In between is a tertium quid, as Untwalia, J. has pointed out as for example, where it is more than a purely interlocutory order and less than a final disposal.....
Learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate the fact that earlier also, Police had submitted a Final Report before learned Magistrate, which was sent for further investigation and after that, Police again submitted a Final Report. ... The impugned order passed by the Revisional Court dated 11.02.2015 is, hereby, quashed & set aside and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court is, hereby, upheld. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ... W....
dated 16.05.2023 and after rejecting the discharge application, direction was also made to frame the charges and this order itself became final. ... The last argument of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is that the present 482 application is virtually the second 482 application challenging the discharge rejection order because in the first application under section 482 filed by the applicants bearing no.7193 of 2023, the order rejecting ......
The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power under Section 397. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. In this very case, this Court has observed that inherent power under Section 482 may not be exercised if the bar under Sections 397(2) and 397(3) applies, except in extraordinary situations, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power under Section 397. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. Reference in this regard can be made to Raj Kapoor and Ors.
It is stated that this order has also become final. Once such an entry is made in the records, it automatically reverses the earlier registration of the fraudulent document. Once such orders are passed, there is no requirement to cancel the document and it is enough if a necessary entry is made in the Encumbrance Certificate itself reflecting the proceedings of the concerned Authority declaring the transaction to be a fraudulent one. 7. In the present case, the third respondent, after conducting an enquiry, has found the transaction to be a fraudulent one and thereby, the d....
In the present case, the second respondent, after conducting an enquiry, has found the transaction to be a fraudulent one and thereby, the document executed in favour of the fifth respondent has become nonest in the eye of law. Once such orders are passed, there is no requirement to cancel the document and it is enough if a necessary entry is made in the Encumbrance Certificate itself reflecting the proceedings of the concerned Authority declaring the transaction to be a fraudulent one. It is stated that this order has also become final. Once such an entry is made in the re....
v. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1980 SC 258 : (1980) 1 SCC 43]}. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power under Section 397. Reference in this regard can be made to Raj Kapoor & Ors.
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
