9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the filing of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allegations of criminal conspiracy, torture, and false cases against a practicing Advocate, directions issued by the High Court for preliminary inquiry, subsequent miscellaneous petitions filed without jurisdiction, and the legality of passing orders in a criminal case without statutory provisions. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy: The respondent, a practicing Advocate, alleged that false criminal cases were fabricated against him by the appellant and another individual to force him to withdraw as counsel for a company. The conspiracy involved a Deputy District Attorney and led to the registration of a case against the respondent. He was subjected to torture, threats, and injuries by police personnel, including being blindfolded, tied up, and physically harmed. Despite filing complaints and seeking action, no response was received, leading to the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Directions for Preliminary Inquiry: The High Court initially disposed of the petition by directing the Senior Superintendent of Police to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. The court emphasized the need for an investigation to determine if a cognizable offense had been committed, with a timeframe of 3 months for the inquiry. The respondent later filed a Miscellaneous Petition, which was disposed of without notice to the appellant, requesting the SSP not to take any action due to the matter being sub judice. Legality of Orders Passed by High Court: The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the impugned orders passed by the High Court were in violation of basic principles of criminal law. The Court highlighted that no provision allows for a review of judgments in criminal cases, and the practice of filing miscellaneous petitions post the main case disposal was deemed unwarranted. The Court emphasized that once a matter is finally disposed of, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain fresh prayers for the same relief unless the former order is set aside by a competent jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court dated 30.4.1999 and 21.7.1999, restoring the original order dated 7.1.1999. The Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised sparingly and within the confines of the law, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and principles of finality in judicial decisions.
|
