The Delhi High Court on 5th April,2021 comprising of a single judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked that the purpose of S.362 Cr.P.C is that once a Court delivers the judgment that Court becomes functus officio and thereafter it cannot reconsider or modify the judgment. The bench further noted that Application under S.482 cannot be used to short-circuit other proceedings which are subsisting between the parties. (SOMBIR DAGAR & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND SOMBIR DAGAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Facts of the case
Due to the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the respondent F.I.Rs were registered for offenses under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC. Parties entered compromise and Court by an order quashed the two FIRs with recourse to law. After that applications have been filed for recalling the prior order on the ground the compromise had been obtained by the petitioners by giving false assurances to the Court.
Contention of the Parties
Mr. Vipul Goel, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant/respondent No.2 has been taken for ride. He stated that since the FIRs were quashed, the respondent No.2 has been beaten, humiliated and thrown out of her house. He would state that the petitioners have committed a fraud on the respondent No.2 and this Court by stating that all the disputes have been resolved. It was argued that the sole purpose of compromise was to get the FIRs quashed. He placed reliance on the case of Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor to support that the case fell under exceptions to embargo u/s 362 Cr.P.C.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The court referred to the Apex court judgment in the case of Nazma v. Javed, where in it was held,
“The practice of filing miscellaneous petitions after the disposal of the main case and issuance of fresh directions in such miscellaneous petitions by the High Court are unwarranted, not referable to any statutory provision and in substance the abuse of the process of the court.”
The court relying on the case of Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, where the Apex Court had discussed the scope of Sections 482, “The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Section 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal [(1981) 1 SCC 500 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 188], that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.”
The court dismissing the applications observed, "A perusal of the application would show that it is yet to be established as to whether cruelty has been committed by the petitioners against the respondent No.2. It cannot be said that the petitioner has misled the Court or suppressed facts when both the parties came before the High Court and pleaded that they have settled all their disputes and the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. As stated above the present proceedings are pending between both the sides. This application cannot be used to short-circuit other proceedings which are subsisting between the parties. In view of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C the applications are not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
