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…!
Offense of Outraging Modesty and Intention to Belong to Scheduled Caste - The Supreme Court clarified that for an offense under the SC/ST Act, there must be an intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste, and the act should be committed with that intent ["Dashrath Sahu VS State Of Chhattisgarh - Supreme Court"].
Power of Court to Compound Offenses - The Court distinguished between the powers under Section 320 of CrPC (which deals with compounding of offences) and the inherent powers under Section 482. It was held that while some offences are non-compoundable, the High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings even in such cases, emphasizing that these are distinct processes ["Deepam Pradhan and Ors. v/s Krishna Kumari Bhandari and Ors. - Sikkim"].
Difference Between Quashing and Compounding - Quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction (Section 482) is different from the compounding of offences under Section 320. The former can apply to non-compoundable offences if justice warrants, whereas the latter is limited to offences that are legally compoundable ["Deepam Pradhan and Ors. v/s Krishna Kumari Bhandari and Ors. - Sikkim"].
Weapon Nature and Offense Severity - Lathi or stick injuries are generally not classified as causing grievous hurt unless there is a fracture or permanent injury, such as loss of hearing. For example, injuries caused by a lathi do not automatically qualify as grievous hurt under Section 320 unless they meet specific criteria ["Nazim VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Deepam Pradhan and Ors. v/s Krishna Kumari Bhandari and Ors. - Sikkim"].
Judicial Discretion in Quashing Proceedings - The courts have repeatedly emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 is a matter of judicial discretion, which can be invoked to quash FIRs or proceedings in the interest of justice, even if the offence is non-compoundable ["SUSHIL SAHA and ANOTHER vs STATE OF TRIPURA - Tripura"], ["Shakib vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"].
Specific Case References - Several judgments confirm that offences like grievous hurt, or those involving non-deadly weapons like a lathi, can be considered for quashing or compounding based on facts and circumstances, with the Court emphasizing the importance of justice and the nature of injuries ["Khandar Singh VS State - Allahabad"], ["SUSHIL SAHA and ANOTHER vs STATE OF TRIPURA - Tripura"].
Conclusion - The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the distinction between compounding and quashing is crucial. While Section 320 limits the compounding of certain offences, the inherent powers under Section 482 allow courts to quash proceedings in appropriate cases, including non-compoundable offences, to serve the interests of justice ["Deepam Pradhan and Ors. v/s Krishna Kumari Bhandari and Ors. - Sikkim"].
References:- ["Dashrath Sahu VS State Of Chhattisgarh - Supreme Court"]- ["Deepam Pradhan and Ors. v/s Krishna Kumari Bhandari and Ors. - Sikkim"]- ["Nazim VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["SUSHIL SAHA and ANOTHER vs STATE OF TRIPURA - Tripura"]- ["Shakib vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["SUSHIL SAHA and ANOTHER vs STATE OF TRIPURA - Tripura"]
In the realm of Indian jurisprudence, the finality of judicial decisions is a cornerstone principle. However, exceptions exist through the power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India. A pivotal judgment, Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported as (2013) 8 SCC 320, clarifies the stringent limits on this power. This case, often cited in subsequent rulings, underscores that review is not an avenue for rehearing but a narrow remedy for patent errors. If you're a legal practitioner, litigant, or law enthusiast wondering about the scope of review petitions, this post delves into the decision's core findings, implications, and applications.
The legal question at the heart of this discussion is the interpretation and application of (2013) 8 SCC 320, which has shaped review jurisprudence across civil, criminal, and constitutional matters.
The Supreme Court in (2013) 8 SCC 320 emphasized that provisions of Article 137 restrict the Court's power of review. Reviews are granted only in exceptional circumstances where a grave error, glaring omission, or patent mistake is evident on the record. Crucially, the Court cautioned against stating detailed reasons for allowing a review, as this could prejudice the losing party during rehearing. Review is explicitly not a rehearing but a limited tool to correct obvious errors Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678.
This stance reinforces judicial discipline, preventing reviews from undermining the finality of judgments.
Review under Article 137 must be exercised sparingly. The Court held: the power of review is circumscribed by the need to identify a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error that has crept into the original judgment Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678. Detailed reasons for granting review are not desirable to be stated, to avoid adverse effects on re-hearing Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678.
Key points include:- Exceptional Circumstances Only: Review is warranted solely for patent mistakes apparent on the face of the record VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709.- No Rehearing or Re-argument: It cannot re-examine settled issues or allow fresh arguments Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678.- Limited Discretion: The Court must be convinced of a patent mistake or glaring omission before intervening VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709.- Minimal Reasoning: Elaborate justifications in review orders are discouraged to prevent prejudice Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678.
The judgment delineates that review addresses errors manifest on the face of the order that undermine its soundness or cause miscarriage of justice. It excludes re-consideration of decided issues or changes in law as grounds, unless exceptionally tied to patent errors Raseena VS Sameer - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1029. For instance, overruling prior precedents does not automatically justify review; this was echoed in land acquisition disputes where reviews were allowed in public interest despite Pune Municipal Corporation overruling, but only after clarifying broader impacts Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 Supreme(SC) 240.
The principles from (2013) 8 SCC 320 have permeated diverse legal contexts, ensuring consistency.
Service Termination Reviews: In a case involving termination under Madhya Pradesh Government Servants Rules, the court dismissed a review petition, holding: Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. Citing Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, it affirmed that simple termination lacks vitiation without notice if no patent error exists Vivek Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2017 Supreme(MP) 1085.
Civil and Property Disputes: Reviews in suits for possession and injunctions were rejected where no breach of obligation or patent error was shown. Courts exercised discretion under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act but dismissed reviews lacking apparent mistakes Raseena VS Sameer - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1029.
Criminal and Compounding Matters: Principles were applied to quashing proceedings under CrPC Sections 320(2) and 482, aligning with non-compoundable offenses' limits, though indirectly reinforcing review caution SUSHIL AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH.
Partnership and Limitation Issues: In dissolution suits, reviews failed absent proof of partnership assets or limitation bars via patent errors, upholding the case's strict criteria Gudiyattam Lungi Company, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Vellore VS G. Vasantha - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 864.
Public Service and Elections: Frivolous reviews in panchayat elections were dismissed with costs, as they sought to evade orders without manifest errors State of U. P. VS Manoj Kumar - 2021 Supreme(All) 1642.
These applications demonstrate the judgment's role in curbing abuse: Principles for review of a judgment or order have been summarised by the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 (Paras 20, 20.1 and 20.2) State of U. P. VS Manoj Kumar - 2021 Supreme(All) 1642.
While restrictive, exceptions include:- Gross violations of natural justice.- Evident mistakes causing manifest injustice.- Glaring omissions on record.
However, changes in law or new arguments do not qualify unless directly exposing a patent flaw Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 Supreme(SC) 240. Courts must avoid substituting views or re-appreciating evidence Vivek Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2017 Supreme(MP) 1085.
Legal practitioners should:1. Pinpoint Patent Errors: Frame petitions highlighting clear, record-apparent mistakes, avoiding expansive arguments.2. Keep Reasons Concise: Align with the caution against detailed justifications Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678.3. Emphasize Exceptionality: Stress grave injustice risks to meet the high threshold.4. Anticipate Scrutiny: Be prepared for dismissal if resembling rehearing attempts.
This approach enhances success prospects while respecting judicial intent.
(2013) 8 SCC 320 stands as a bulwark for judgment finality, limiting Article 137 reviews to genuine corrections. By mandating sparsity and minimal reasoning, it promotes efficiency and fairness. Key takeaways:- Reviews correct patent errors only, not re-argue cases VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709.- Exceptional use preserves judicial resources.- Cited widely, from service law to civil suits, it guides consistent application.
Note: This post provides general insights based on public judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Always verify latest developments.
References1. (2013) 8 SCC 320 (Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati) Medical Council of India VS Christian Medical College Vellore - 2016 2 Supreme 678VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709.2. Related applications in service, civil, and criminal reviews Raseena VS Sameer - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1029Vivek Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2017 Supreme(MP) 1085Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 Supreme(SC) 240.
#SupremeCourtReview #Article137 #ReviewPetition
State of Maharashtra, 2000(3) SCC 557 wherein it was held as below:- “9. ... 8. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. ... The short point arising for consideration of this Court is as to whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC was justified and lawful. ... Accordingly,....
Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1] and Shiji [(2011) 10 SCC 705] do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 ... Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1] and Shiji [(2011) 10 SCC 705] this Co....
8. The petitioner preferred criminal revision no. 331 of 2018 - Shahnawaz Vs. ... State of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Branch, MCRR No. 5920 of 2018 Section 320 and Section 326 I.P.C have been discussed, in which it has been held that lathi is not a dangerous weapons and if any injuries has been caused by lathi, it would not be covered under Sections 320 and 326 I.P.C. ... State of Kerala, 1995 SCC (Cri) 165, it has been held that lathi is not a deadly weapon. 25. In paras 10 & 11 of the judgment passed in the case of Phool....
Article 320(3)(c) is in these terms: “320. (3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted. ... Another judgment, which has been cited before us is judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 4 SCC 480 – Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors. ... Shailen Shah – (2020) SCC OnLine NCLAT 1013, where again in paragraph 15 of the judgment, following has been laid down: “15. ... The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1980) 1 SCC 403 – Sharif-Ud-Din vs. Abdul....
PETN. 21 OF 2013 Page 8 of 18 (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1 SCC 675, and Nikhil Merchant : (2008) 9 SCC 8.
The offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. has been defined under Section 320 I.P.C. Section 320 I.P.C. reads as follows: 320. Grievous hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as grievous: First: Emasculation. ... (1970) 1 SCC 8 the Apex Court has held that for the application of clause 7 of Section 325 it is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragmen....
As per the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this case was listed before this Court on 30.7.2013, 6.8.2013, 14.8.2013, 22.8.2013, 30.8.2013, 2.9.2013, 30.9.2013, 3.10. 2013, 21.10.2013, 11.11.2013 and on 13.11.2013. ... 6. Mr. ... 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Se....
’/ 2013:DHC:320-DB ... Municipal Council, Sanaur [(2011) 6 SCC 584, the appellant before the Supreme Court was engaged by the respondent with effect from 1.8.1994 and his services were discontinued with effect from 30.09.1996 ... Thus, neither the order dated 8.8.1994 disclosed selection of a regular ST candidate nor was such a selection proved during the proceedings before the Labour Court. ... Since the services of the respondents were terminated vide....
5) During the pendency of Sessions Trial No.304/2013, an application under Section 320(2) and 320(8) of the CrPC was moved by Balai Das and the accused persons on the ground that they have settled the dispute and the complainant ... During the pendency of the Sessions Trial, applications under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) for compounding the offences have been preferred by the complainant and the petitioners, wherein the learned Court has compounded the offence under S....
/2013 & 336/2013 Page 3 of 8 IPC. ... However, compensation awarded to legal heirs of 2018:DHC:6307 MAC.APPs.320/2013 & 336/2013 Page 8 of 8 deceased-Rajeev by the Tribunal is reduced from ₹ MAC.APPs.320/2013 & 336/2013 Page 1 of 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Page 2 of 8 place on 27th ....
Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 in support of their submissions.
Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.” In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320, it was held as follows :
Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 (Paras 20, 20.1 and 20.2), as under: 8. Principles for review of a judgment or order have been summarised by the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs.
Mayawathi reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, in paras 18 and 19 it is held as follows: It is useful to refer the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice………………” In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 it is held:
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
