Orissa High Court
Prof. (Dr.) Pusparaj Dash vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 6 December, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1956 of 2022
Prof. (Dr.) Pusparaj Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate for informant
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
06.12.2023
Order No. I.A. No.3416 of 2023
05. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant
and learned counsel for the petitioner in CRLMC No.1956 of 2022.
2. Instant IA is filed for recall of the Court's judgment dated
28th February, 2023 passed in CRLMC No.1956 of 2022 and for a
decision on merit with the participation of the informant.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant submits
that at the instance of the informant, the FIR was lodged leading to
the registration of Burla P.S. Case No.300 dated 7th August, 2019
and filling of chargesheet. It is further submitted that the informant
was made a party as opposite party No.2. It is contended that
though the informant was directed to be impleaded, he was not
provided any opportunity of hearing before the disposal of CRLMC
No.1956 of 2022.
4. In reply and response to the above, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the informant was not made a party but the
Registrar, Veer Surendra Sai University was impleaded and with a
proper hearing, the judgment dated 28th February, 2023 was
delivered.
5. The contention of the informant is that since there has been
no opportunity of hearing provided to him and the judgment dated
28th February, 2023 in CRLMC No.1956 of 2022 should be recalled
in the interest of justice.
6. Objection is filed by the petitioner to the IA by stating that
the petition is not maintainable to recall the judgment in CRLMC
No.1956 of 2022. That apart, such review of a final judgment
rendered stands barred in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and while
contending so, he refers to the following decisions, such as, Hari
Singh Mann Vrs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others (2001) 1 SCC
169 and Sanjeev Kapoor Vrs. Chandana Kapoor and others (2020)
13 SCC 172 besides Simrikhia Vrs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi
Mukherjee and Another (1990) 2 SCC 437.
7. On the one hand, the recall of the judgment dated 28th
February, 2023 passed in CRLMC No.1956 of 2022 with a plea that
the informant was not provided an opportunity of hearing is
pleaded, whereas, on the other hand, the same is opposed referring
to Section 362 Cr.P.C. which bars review.
8. Having regard to the submissions as above and citations
referred to and being alive to the settled legal position with respect
to review and bar in terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court is of the
considered view that if the plea of the informant is accepted, it
would amount to review. In other words, at the instance of the
informant, there cannot be rehearing of the matter since law bars
any such review of the final judgment in view of Section 362
Cr.P.C. In fact, in Hari Singh Mann (supra), the Supreme Court held
that once a matter is finally disposed of, in absence of any specific
statutory provisions, the Court becomes functus officio and any such
exercisable power under Section 482 Cr.P.C would be an abuse of
process of law. The Apex Court expressed similar view in other
decisions cited above. The Court is of the further view that the
informant has been well defended by the State leading to the
delivery of the final judgment.
9. In such view of the matter, the Court is of the conclusion
that the IA filed by the informant deserves no consideration, which
is hereby dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu
