2008 (9) TMI 626 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an order disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to grant any relief, could be modified and, thereafter, an investigation, which was with the State Police authorities could be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation? Held that - Appeal allowed. A prayer could be made by the respondents before the High Court for transferring the investigation from the State Police authorities to the CBI by filing a fresh petition under Section 482 of the Code in view of subsequent events that had taken place after the final order disposing of the earlier criminal petition was passed. Again, as noted herein earlier, the respondents had never applied for transferring the investigation from State Police authorities to the CBI by making an independent application. Accordingly, we do not think that the High Court was justified in handing over the investigation of the case from the State Police authorities to the CBI authorities.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court had become functus officio with the disposal of the criminal petition by the judgment and order dated 1st of March, 2001.
2. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can modify its earlier judgment and order.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Functus Officio Status of the High Court
The first issue pertains to whether the High Court had become functus officio after disposing of the criminal petition by its judgment and order dated 1st of March, 2001. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had indeed become functus officio after passing the final order. The principle of functus officio implies that once a court has passed a final order, it becomes powerless to entertain further applications on the same matter unless there is a statutory provision permitting such action. This principle was supported by the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, where it was held that "the court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed."

2. Inherent Powers Under Section 482 of the Code
The second issue is whether the High Court can modify its earlier judgment and order using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 482 is intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. However, it cannot be used to review or alter a final order, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, as per Section 362 of the Code. This was further elaborated in the case of Simrikha v. Dolley Mukherjee, where it was held that "the inherent power under Section 482 cannot be exercised to do something, which is expressly barred under the Code."

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had initially rejected the prayer to transfer the investigation to the CBI in its final order dated 1st of March, 2001. The High Court had no jurisdiction to modify this order later under Section 482, as it would amount to reviewing its earlier decision, which is expressly prohibited by Section 362 of the Code. The Court emphasized that "Section 362 prohibits reopening of a final order except in the cases of clerical or arithmetical errors."

Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in reopening and modifying its final order, which had already disposed of the criminal petition. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. However, the Supreme Court clarified that it would be open for the respondents to file a fresh criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code if subsequent events warranted transferring the investigation to the CBI.

← Previous Next →