The Madurai Bench dismissed the petition seeking recall of an order and quashing of consequential orders, holding that recall involves reconsideration (review) which is absolutely barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Petition denied; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.10.2013
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P(MD)No.10378 of 2013
and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
P.Ashok Kumar Jain
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Through the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tirunelveli. (Crime No.44/2004)
2.M.Sulaiman ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 401 r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to recall the order dated 22.10.2010, passed in C.A.No.179 of 2007 insofar as it relates to the return of material object No.15 and to quash the order passed by the Honourable 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.83 of 2011 dated 25.04.2011 and the consequential order passed by the Honourable 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.31 of 2013 dated 25.02.2013 are to be quashed.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar
For R – 1 : Mr.K.Chellapandian AAG Assisted by Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.S.Ravi
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to recall the order dated 22.10.2010, passed in C.A.No.179 of 2007 insofar as it relates to the return of material object No.15 and to quash the order passed by the Honourable 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.83 of 2011 dated 25.04.2011 and the consequential order passed by the Honourable 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.31 of 2013 dated 25.02.2013 are to be quashed.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1232, wherein while informing that there is a bar against the review under Section 362 Cr.P.C, it is held that a Court would have power to recall its order.
2
reconsideration of the decision sought to be recalled and that in effect would be a review. In any event, a catena of decisions of the Apex Court inform that the bar against review provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C is absolute. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1cc to Mr.M.Senthil Kumar Advocate SR.No. 51416.
TS/06.11.2013/2P-6C
Crl.O.P(MD)No.10378 of 2013
21.10.2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can recall an order under Cr.P.C. as a proxy for review prohibited by Section 362.
Whether Section 362 Cr.P.C. imposes an absolute bar against the power of recall.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherReferred¶2
AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1232 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Ashok Kumar Jain
The State of Tamil Nadu, Through the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tirunelveli
M.Sulaiman
C.T. Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
