Petitioners challenged an order dismissing their Section 482 CrPC petition, claiming they were absent due to heavy court rush when the order was passed. The Court held Section 362 CrPC bars such interference.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1028 of 2016
======================================================
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties.
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGEMENT Date: 27-01-2016
By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioners seek modification of the order dated 17.12.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52955 of 2015, whereby the said application filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the revisional order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1028 of 2016 dt.27-01-2016
2/5
Additional District and Sessions Judge, XI, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 489 of 2015 rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 552 (c) of 2007, has been dismissed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1028 of 2016 dt.27-01-2016
3/5
application under Section 482 CrPC vide Cr. Misc. No. 52955 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2015 observing as under:-
“Though the present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the same is in the form of second revision which is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise there is no apparent error in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court.
Accordingly, the application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.”
was passed by this Court, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC on 06.01.2016 seeking modification of the same.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1028 of 2016 dt.27-01-2016
4/5
petitioner came out of the court-room and was standing in the varanda . He has submitted that when the matter was taken up, he was not in the court-room and the order was passed in his absence. He came to know about the order at about 12.30 p.m. on the same day. He has further submitted that since the order was passed in his absence, the same may be recalled and modified.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1028 of 2016 dt.27-01-2016
5/5
refer here Section 362 CrPC, which reads as under:
“362. Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Kanchan/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking setting aside an order passed in absence of counsel is maintainable under Section 362 CrPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Narendra Nath Mishra
Sunil Kumar Mishra
The State of Bihar
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
