Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1312 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2016-05-06

ANITA CHAUDHRY

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application filed by the complainantrespondent no.2 seeking recall of the order dated 23.04.2013, vide which FIR No.222 dated 25.11.2012, registered under Sections 498- A & 406 IPC at Police Station City Kharar, SAS Nagar (Mohali) had been quashed on the basis of compromise. 2. Bhupinder Singh, his parents and his two sisters had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise in March, 2013. The counsel appearing for the complainant accepted notice on the first date of hearing and notice of motion was issued to the State. Respondent no.2 was present in the Court in person and had made a statement that she had no objection and that the FIR should be quashed and had also filed an affidavit in that regard. 3. The Co-ordinate Bench quashed the FIR on 23.04.2013. 4. The complainant has filed the application (CRM-31847- 2014) pleading that on account of intervention of the elders, a compromise had been effected and the complainant wanted to save her marriage and believing the undertaking and promises, she had started living with her husband along with minor son and till the quashing of the petition, the petitioners kept her in good humor and thereafter, started harassing her and finally abandoned her within two months. It was pleaded that the order quashing the FIR should be recalled as it has been obtained by stating wrong facts and the petitioners had no intention to keep up the promises made. 5. Notice was given to the petitioners who have put in appearance. The parties were again sent to the Mediation Centre. The matter could not be settled. Meanwhile, the complainant had filed an application to place on record the complaint she had given to the police and the opinion of the DDA Legal and the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. 6. The counsel for the applicant (wife) had referred to the application given by the complainant to the police and has referred to the statements recorded by Superintendent of Police (Security & Traffic), District SAS Nagar and also referred to the opinion given by DDA Legal who had advised them to seek revival of the FIR. It was urged that the husband did not keep the complainant even for two months. It was urged that the husband did not keep the complainant even for two months. It was urged that the foundation of the compromise was that the parties would live peacefully and the petitioners had compromised only with a view to get the FIR quashed and it was an abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance was placed upon Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 118] : 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 876. 7. On the other hand, it was urged that the parents had already disowned the son and they were staying separately and the things did not work out and that was a different issue and there is a statutory bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and the order could not be recalled. It was urged that the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. are crystal clear and there are judicial precedents and there are no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizing the High Court to review its own judgment and said power cannot be exercised with the aid of Section 482 of the Code. Reliance was placed upon Chetan Walia and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2016(1) RCR (Crl.) 632, Shilesh Katiyar Vs. Sukhendra Singh and Ors. Law Finder Doc ID – 753404, Nazma Vs. Javed @ Anjum, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4633] : 2013(1) SCC (Crl.) 508, Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa 2001 AIR (SC) 43 and Abdul Basit @ Raju and others Vs. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another, [2014(5) Law Herald (SC) 3751] : 2015 SCC (Crl.) 257. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the complainant side had appeared on the very first hearing and had appeared in the Court to support the quashing petition filed by the husband and the in-laws family. The Co-ordinate Bench had issued notice to the State and the complainant had appeared in the Court and had filed an affidavit that a compromise has been effected. The Co-ordinate Bench quashed the FIR in April, 2013. The application for recall of the order was filed in 2014. It appears that differences again cropped up and complaint was made to the police. Thereafter, an application for recall of the order was filed and the parties were sent for mediation but thing did not work out. 9. The question that arises is whether the order can be recalled. The application for recall of the order was filed in 2014. It appears that differences again cropped up and complaint was made to the police. Thereafter, an application for recall of the order was filed and the parties were sent for mediation but thing did not work out. 9. The question that arises is whether the order can be recalled. Coming to the scope and ambit of statutory bar for recalling/reviewing the order dated 23.4.2013, the issue is no more res integra. In fact, the provisions of law contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. are crystal clear. So far as judicial precedents are concerned, the latest being Abdul Basit @ Raju and others etc. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another, [2014(5) Law Herald (SC) 3751] : 2015 (1) SCC (Crl.) 257, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after discussing the entire case law reiterated its earlier view taken in the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, 2001 (1) SCC 169 . 10. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and dis-entitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio the moment the order is signed. 11. Section 482 enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statute. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction. 12. In view of the above position, it is held that the order cannot be recalled as the Court has become functus officio. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction. 12. In view of the above position, it is held that the order cannot be recalled as the Court has become functus officio. It has no power to recall such an order and it would amount to review of the earlier judgment. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.