Dharam Singh Meena & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 733/2021

Brief Facts

  • Petition was filed for quashing of FIR lodged under Section 419 IPC. Petitioner had earlier filed a S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition for seeking quashing of the same FIR, however, the Hon’ble Court rejected the said Petition.
  • The Petitioner contested that two FIRs involving similar facts lodged against the Petitioner in Delhi were quashed by the Delhi High Court.
  • The fact of the quashing of one of the FIRs by the Delhi High Court could not be brought before the Rajasthan High Court during the first Petition for quashing. Citing the dismissal of similar FIRs in Delhi, the petitioners filed the present Petitioner under new circumstances.

Issues

  • Whether a successive petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the FIR would be maintainable when an earlier Petition seeking quashing of the same FIR was dismissed?
  • Whether the Section 362 of Cr.P.C. bar the jurisdiction of the court to alter or review its earlier decision?

Held

  • High Court rejected the Petition by concluding that the Petition is not maintainable in light of bar under Section 362 of CrPC.
  • The Hon’ble court by relying on the judgment issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Simrikhia Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437 held that a judgment or final order cannot be changed or reopened once it is signed, with the exception of minor arithmetic or clerical errors.
  • The purpose of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is that once a Court delivers a judgment or a final order disposing of a case, that judgment becomes functus officio, and it cannot be reconsidered or modified. The inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing something that is specifically prohibited by the Cr.P.C. as doing so would be a violation of the law enacted by the Legislature and the precedents of the Supreme Court. Further, Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new powers on the High Court; it only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the commencement of the Code.
  • This Court is of the opinion that if any order is passed in consonance of the prayer made in this petition, it would invariably amounts to review which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and is not permissible even under the inherent powers possessed by this Court.

Relevant Para No.

10, 11, 12

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

"Disclaimer & Confirmation As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, law firms are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, user acknowledges the following:​

There has been no advertisements, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website; user wishes to gain more information about Mohit Khandelwal and Associates and its attorneys for his/her own information and use;

The information about us is provided to the user on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at their own volition and any transmission.

We are not responsible for any reliance that a user places on such information and shall not be liable for any loss or damage.

However, the user is advised to confirm the veracity of the same from independent and expert sources."