High Court Criminal Bench dismissed an application seeking modification of a Criminal Writ Petition order, holding that the order suffered no clerical or arithmetical errors and barring modification under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
The order dated 26th November, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 2629 of 2012 is not modified; Criminal Application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
appw-34-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
rpa
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2013 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2629 OF2012
Mrs. Anjala Sharma .. Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Devang R. Sanghavi, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. A. T. Javeri, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. V. C. Gupte, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 2, 2013.
P.C. :
Heard both the learned counsel extensively. Modification of order dated 26th November, 2012, recorded in Criminal Writ Petition No.2629 of 2012 is sought by Smt. Anjala Sharma (respondent no.2 in writ petition)
2 The ground for modification basically are :
(a) It was an order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated
4th May, 2012, inadvertently referred to reinvestigation,
however, the purport was for further investigation as it was
1/3
appw-34-13
so indicated by virtue of quoting Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
(b) Order of this Court does not deal with factual scenario as appeared in Family Court controversy between Mr. Abishekh and Smt.Anjala (Abhishekh's mother-in-law).
3 Order of this Court is quite eloquent deal with all aspects which were then argued including merit in the case projected by Smt. Anjala. The order also specifies how family members of Anjala was humiliated or persecuted.
4 Learned counsel for respondent no.2 (original writ petitioner) has pointed out that in terms of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., this Court would not be in a position to alter the judgment or modify it. According to learned counsel, there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the questioned order.
5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nazma V/s. Javed 1 has deprecated practice of entertaining miscellaneous petitions after disposal of main petitions being ultra virus to basic
- (2013) 1 SCC 376.
2/3
appw-34-13
principles of criminal law. It was observed, once judgment or order is pronounced Courts have no powers to review except carrying out of typographical or clerical errors.
6 This Court has clearly rejected the order passed on
such application purportedly in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. referred to above. This Court has not eclipsed other available avenues to original complainant Smt. Anjala before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Consequently, no modification in the order dated 26th November, 2012, recorded in Writ Petition No.2629 of 2012 is warranted. Criminal application is dismissed.
(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court has the power under Section 362 Cr.P.C. to modify the Criminal Writ Petition No. 2629 of 2012 order dated 26th November, 2012.
Whether the impugned order can be modified to reinvestigate based on Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nazma V/s. JavedRelied on¶23
Nazma V/s. Javed (2013) 1 SCC 376 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Anjala Sharma
The State of Maharashtra
K. U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
