News By/Courtesy: Ambuja Jain | 14 May 2019 22:30pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Apex Court observed that ‘an application for review or modification could not have been entertained’ while setting aside a High Court order in a Section 482 CrPC petition.
  • In this case, the High Court had dismissed the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the framing of charge under appropriate provisions.
  • The High Court while dismissing the petition under Section 482 observed that it would be open to the second respondent to pursue his remedies after framing of the charge.

The Apex Court observed that ‘an application for review or modification could not have been entertained’ while setting aside a High Court order in a Section 482 CrPC petition. Here, a man who was accused of offences under Section 364 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to quash the FIR and during the pendency of this petition, charge sheet was filed.

In this case, the High Court had dismissed the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the framing of charge under appropriate provisions. After which, the accused had filed another petition seeking to review, recall and modify the order, which was allowed by the High Court.

After the order of the High Court, the complainant had approached the Supreme Court against this order contending that the High Court could not have entertained the subsequent petition under Section 482 for review or, as the case may be, for modification of its earlier order having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 362 of the CrPC.  Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that, no, court, when it has signed its judgement or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review that same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Allowing the appeal, the constitutional bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta said, “The High Court while dismissing the petition under Section 482 observed that it would be open to the second respondent to pursue his remedies after framing of the charge. In view of the specific bar which is contained in Section 362, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable. Such an application for review or modification could not have been entertained.”

Section Editor: Shreyashi Tiwari | 14 May 2019 22:33pm IST


Tags : #Supreme_Court #Review #Recall #Modify #Order

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.