CrPC Section 362

Embargo put on the criminal court to alter or review its judgment is with a purpose and object

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Section 362 - Power of Criminal Court to alter or review its judgment - The embargo put on the criminal court to alter or review its judgment is with a purpose and object - Criminal justice delivery system does not cloth criminal court with power to alter or review the judgment or final order disposing the case except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error - After the judgment delivered by a criminal Court or passing final order disposing the case the Court becomes functus officio and any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by appropriate forum in accordance with law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 369. #2020 SCeJ 76

Order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by setting aside order passed on settlement is not hit by the embargo contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) – Section 125 - Court which passes order on settlement between parties has the power to recall/set aside the order if terms are violated - Order passed by Family Court reviving the maintenance application of the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by setting aside order passed on settlement is not hit by the embargo contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. #2020 SCeJ 76

Words | “otherwise provided by this Court or by any other law for the time being in force”

“The appellant points out that he invoked the inherent power of the High Court saved by Section 482 of the Code and that notwithstanding the prohibition imposed by Section 362 the High Court had power to grant relief. Now it is well settled that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code (Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.). It is true that the prohibition in Section 362 against the court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what is “otherwise provided by this Court or by any other law for the time being in force”. Those words, however, refer to those provisions only where the court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The inherent power of the court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail.” Smt. Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another, AIR 1981 SC 736

Section 482 | If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction.

“Section 362 of the Code expressly provides that 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 save as otherwise provided by the Code. Section 482 enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statute. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction.” Smt. Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another, AIR 1981 SC 736

In order to do complete justice between the parties, we would in the facts and circumstances activate the wife’s claim to maintenance and put her in the same position as before

In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. parties compromised and started living together but later fell apart. An objection was raised by the husband that order of maintenance could not be revived with which High Court agreed. This Supreme Court revived the maintenance application by allowing the appeal. In paragraph 3 following was held: “3. The matter can be viewed from either angle. It can be viewed that there was a genuine effort by the wife to rehabilitate herself in her matrimonial home but in vain. The previous orders of maintenance in a manner of speaking could at best be taken to have been suspended but not wiped out altogether. The other view can be that the maintenance order stood exhausted and thus she be left to fight a new litigation on a fresh cause of action. Out of the two courses, we would prefer to adopt the first one, for if we were to resort to the second option, it would lead to injustice. In a given case the wife may then be reluctant to settle with her husband lest she lose the order of maintenance secured on his neglect or refusal. Her husband on the other side, would jump to impromptu devices to demolish the maintenance order in duping the wife to a temporary reconciliation. Thus, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we would in the facts and circumstances activate the wife’s claim to maintenance and put her in the same position as before. Evidently, she has obtained a maintenance order at a figure which was taken into account by the Court of the C.J.M. Taking that into account, we order the husband to pay to his wife and the daughter a sum of Rs 1000 each, effective from 1-10-1997. The sum of Rs 12,000 which was earlier ordered by this Court to be paid to the wife and her daughter as arrears of maintenance shall be taken to have been duly paid uptil 30-9-1997, irrespective of the rate of maintenance. This streamlines the dispute between the parties. It is made clear that it is open to the parties to claim such other relief as may be due to him/her by raising a matrimonial dispute before the matrimonial court.” Mahua Biswas(Smt.) vs. Swagata Biswas and another, (1998) 2 SCC 359

See Also: Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & others, 2001 (1) SCC 169