Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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