“Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court Limitation Act | Article 137 Applies to Applications Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC; 3-Year Limit Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Benami Defence Cannot Override Registered Ownership: Delhi High Court Buries 35-Year-Old Family Settlement Claim Over Property Dispute Off-Road Construction Vehicles Not ‘Motor Vehicles’ Under Law: Supreme Court Quashes Road Tax on Dumpers, Excavators, and Dozers

High Court Dismisses Successive Petitions Seeking Quashing of FIR - Bar on Review and Limited Scope of Inherent Powers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed two successive petitions filed by the petitioners, Dharam Singh Meena and Vikas Kumar, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 476/2014 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jaipur South. The court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, based its decision on the bar on review and the limited scope of inherent powers under the relevant provisions of the law.

The petitioners had previously filed a similar petition in 2017, which was dismissed by the court. The court noted that under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it is prohibited from altering or reviewing a judgment or final order, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The court stated that it lacked the authority to modify its earlier judgment, which had already disposed of the case.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that similar FIRs against the petitioners had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. However, the court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to override the bar on review imposed by Section 362 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the inherent powers of the court cannot be exercised to do something specifically prohibited by the law.

High Court held that the successive petition seeking the same relief was not maintainable and dismissed both petitions. It further clarified that the court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized to set aside its own final order, which can only be done by the higher appellate authority.

This judgment underscores the importance of understanding the limitations placed on courts regarding the review of judgments and the exercise of inherent powers. It highlights the significance of bringing all relevant facts to the court's attention at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The decision reaffirms the principle that inherent powers cannot be employed to circumvent statutory provisions.

Ruling by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan serves as a reminder of the legal framework governing the alteration or review of judgments and the boundaries of inherent powers in criminal matters.

Date of Decision: 11/01/2023

Dharam Singh Versus State Of Rajasthan,

Latest Legal News