The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition challenging the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, allowing the prayer of the opposite party to treat his protest petition as a complaint, held that after a Court has disposed of a case by a final order, it can alter or review the same only to correct the clerical or arithmetical error; by the order impugned, the learned Magistrate travelled far beyond correction of a clerical or arithmetical error in its order disposing of the case.
Brief Facts:
The opposite party had filed an application under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was registered as FIR, and a case under sections 420/403/34 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the petitioners. During the pendency of further investigation, the petitioners filed an application before this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings of the case. The revisional application was dismissed for default. The opposite party filed an application seeking consideration of his Naraji petition and treating the same as a complaint, which was allowed. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that in view of the provision laid down under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate had no authority to review his order disposing of the proceeding and directing registration of a complaint case by allowing the prayer of the opposite party.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all civil and criminal Courts can exercise such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of the administration of justice.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that despite accepting the second FRMF and dropping the proceedings vide order dated 2nd November 2023, the learned Magistrate chose to re-open the case and allowed the Naraji petition filed by the opposite party and treated the same as a complaint.
The Court observed that after a Court has disposed of a case by a final order it can alter or review the same only to correct clerical or arithmetical error. The Court said that by the order impugned, the learned Magistrate travelled far beyond correction of a clerical or arithmetical error in its order disposing of the case. The learned Magistrate re-opened the case and dealt with it on merits by treating the Narazi petition as a complaint case. This amounts to recalling or reviewing the final order by the Magistrate. Under section 362 of the Code, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has no legal sanction to re-open the proceedings and treat the Naraji petition filed by the opposite party as a complaint case.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is set aside/quashed.
Case Title: Ram Kishore Bansal & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Dutta
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh
Case No.: CRR 2214 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Roy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
