9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal are as follows: The marriage of the Appellant and 1st Respondent took place in the year 1997 according to the Muslim rites and customs and out of that wedlock three children were born. According to the Appellant, 1st Respondent married again for a third time. During the subsistence of the Appellant's marriage, 1st Respondent kept on harassing the Appellant demanding dowry, which resulted in the lodgment of an F.I.R. by the Appellant's brother, being F.I.R. No. 72 of 2003, on 5.8.2003 and a case was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against 1st Respondent and his family members. The case was later transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Achhnera, District Agra, shall not be effected until the conclusion of investigation or submission of the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. with this direction the petition is finally disposed of. (Emphasis added) The above order is seen passed by the High Court with the intention that the parties would settle their disputes amicably. 5. 1st Respondent also filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5877 of 2003 before the High Court of Allahabad seeking identical reliefs. Writ petition was filed without making the Appellant or his brother a party. Writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 25.9.2003 stating that 1st Respondent should not be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court of Allahabad in Revision Petition No. 694 of 2004 which was dismissed by the High Court on 24.2.2004 by the following order: Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, this revision petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, I direct that if revisionist moves objections through counsel within two weeks against the impugned order, the same may be disposed of expeditiously and till the disposal of the objection the revisionist shall not be arrested. (Emphasis added) 7. 1st Respondent filed objections before the learned Magistrate on 5.3.2004 with a prayer for recalling the summoning order dated 15.1.2004. 8. 1st Respondent then filed an application, Criminal Miscellaneou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the rise, in spite of the fact that this practice has been deprecated by this Court in various judgments. Reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 169. Learned Counsel further submitted that the High Court, by granting stay of arrest, is depriving the trial Courts of its power to issue orders under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel also submitted that the order of the High Court is also interfering with the powers of the Family Court in passing appropriate orders in the application filed under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Shri Arvind Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submitted that the High Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following paragraph of that judgment is apposite: 8. We have noted with disgust that the impugned orders were passed completely ignoring the basic principles of criminal law. No review of an order is contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the disposal of the main petition on 7-1-1999, there was no lis pending in the High Court wherein the Respondent could have filed any miscellaneous petition. The filing of a miscellaneous petition not referable to any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the rules of the court, cannot be resorted to as a substitute of fresh litigation. The record of the proceedings produced before us shows that directions in the case filed by the Respondents were issued apparently witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... great care and caution. 13. We are of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in not only entertaining the criminal miscellaneous application in a disposed of writ petition, but also passing an order not to arrest the 1st Respondent till the conclusion of the trial. Grant of bail or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular Criminal Court and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, not justified in usurping their powers. Once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors. In the instant case, the High Court has entertained a petition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
