No Criminal Court can alter, modify or review it's own order.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

JUSTICE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Atul Shukla Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. On 20 August 2018

Law Point:
No Criminal Court can alter, modify or review it’s own order.

JUDGEMENT

Leave granted.
A First Information Report being FIR No. 575/2016 was registered at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh for offences under Section 364 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 8 September 2016.
A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731 was filed by the second respondent for quashing of the FIR. In the meantime, charges were framed on 24 April 2017. On 20 July 2018, the High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 in the following terms:-
“Considering the circumstances, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has no merit. The petitioner may challenge the framing of charge under appropriate provisions.

With the above observation, this petition is dismissed.”

After the above order, the second respondent filed another petition under Section 482 in which the following relief was sought:
“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly review, recall and modify the order dated 20.07.2018 in the interest of justice.”

It is on the second petition that the High Court passed its impugned order dated

1 “CrPC”

20 August 2018 allowing the petition and recalling its earlier order dated 20 July 2018.

The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is 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 provides as follows:
“Section 362: Court not to alter judgment. 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.”

The State of Madhya Pradesh represented by the learned Standing Counsel has filed a counter affidavit supporting the contention of the appellant.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has urged that in the order dated 20 July 2018, the High Court had recorded the submission that no offence under Section 364 was made out.
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.
We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 20 August 2018 in M.Cr.C. No. 29880/2018.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………………………………….J.
(Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)

………………………………………………….J.
(Hemant Gupta)

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us