Allahabad High Court
Manjeet Singh & Others vs State & Others on 10 July, 2014
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 512 of 1990
Revisionist :- Manjeet Singh & Others
Opposite Party :- State & Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,R.N. Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.1990 passed by the City Munsif, Meerut in Case No. 54/9 of 1989 recalling and setting aside the earlier order dated 15.02.1990, whereby the complaint of the opposite party No. 2 was dismissed and the revisionists were discharged.
List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the revisionists and opposite party No. 2. Heard learned AGA and perused the material brought on record.
The complaint was filed before the Munsif Magistrate by the opposite party No. 2 stating that she was married to Manjit Singh, revisionist No. 1 on 14th April, 1982 at village Jajhokar, police station Kankarkhera, district Meerut and all the rites were performed and the opposite party No.2 started living with revisionist No. 1 as his wife. revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of revisionist No. 1, revisonist No. 4 is his aunt (chachi), revisionist No. 5 is his second wife, revisionist No. 6 is the mother of second wife, revisionist No. 7 is the brother of second wife of revisionist No. 1, revisionist Nos. 8 and 9 are the aunt and uncle-in-laws (mausi and mausa) of revisionist No. 1 in whose house the marriage of revisionist No. 1 with revisionist No. 5 was solemnized, revisionist No. 11 is the maternal uncle of mother of revisionist No. 5 and revisionist Nos. 10 is the maternal uncle of revisionist No. 1, revisionist Nos. 12 and 13 are the sister and brother-in-laws of revisionist No. 1.
All the accused-revisionist Nos. 1 to 14 are related to each other and are in collusion. They had knowledge that revisionist No.1 was legally married to the opposite party No.2 in the year 1982 and she was alive. The revisionist No. 5 in collusion with other revisionists got married to accused-revisionist No. 1. One child was born out of the wedlock of the opposite party No. 2 and revisionist No. 1, who later on died.
On 15.10.1982 when the opposite party No.1 was ill, the revisionist No. 1 took away all the jewellery and clothes of the opposite party No.2 and left her at her father's house. Revisionist No. 1 did not come to take opposite party No. 2 back. When father and brother of the opposite party No.2 went to the revisionist No. 1, he did not give any satisfactory reply and it appeared from his conversation that he wanted to remarry. At this, the family members of the opposite party No.2 held a panchayat in the village of the revisionist No. 1. The villagers of the village of revisionist No. 1 asked him not to do so. Later on the revisionist No. 1 filed a case for divorce against the opposite party No.2, which was dismissed. The complainant also filed a petition under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Civil Judge, Meerut, in which interim maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month and Rs. 1500/- was awarded as litigation charges.
Since, the villagers of revisionist No. 1 opposed the second marriage of revisionist No. 1, hence in order to conceal his second marriage, revisionist No. 1 performed his second marriage with revisionist No. 5 at village Adarsh Khwaja Nagla at the house of revisionist Nos. 8 and 9 on 09.12.1984. The second marriage was performed observing all the rites as per Hindu law and the remaining revisionists were present and witnessed the marriage. Thus, the revisionists have committed the offences under sections 494 and 109 IPC and liable to be punished.
Proceedings in this complaint commenced and the revisionists were summoned under sections 494 and 109 IPC. After the revisionists were summoned, proceedings started in the case and 15.02.1990 was fixed for evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C.
On 15.02.1990 when the case was called out at 12.00 O'clock in the day time, the opposite party No.2 was absent, hence the learned lower court dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused persons. It appears that the complainant later on appeared on the same day, the order dismissing the complaint was recalled and 11.05.1990 was fixed for evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C.
Feeling aggrieved the revisionists have come up in this revision.
Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow the Court to alter the judgment.
Section 362 Cr.P.C. says that "Court not to after judgement.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, 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 clerical or arithmetical error".
Thus, the Court had absolutely no power to strike out its order of the same date by just two strokes of a pen and washing it out. It is settled law that when the Court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case it shall not be altered or reviewed the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. "A clerical or arithmetical error" is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on arguments or disputation. An arithmetical error is mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing.
In the instant case, the order passed by the Court was not the correction of clerical or arithmetical error of the Court and thus, the inherent power of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power by the appellant can be of no avail.
The prohibition in section 362 against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force." These words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment.
The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail.
Hence, the learned lower court was lacking jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, which has been passed.
Thus, the learned lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, which can not be sustained at all. In view of the forgoing discussions, the revision is liable to be allowed.
The revision is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.1990 is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 10.7.2014
Sazia
