Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrikrishna Bedekar vs Anil Kumar on 31 January, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.5526/2016
Shri A.K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel with shri
H. Chanderia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.M. Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the
respondent.
ORDER
(Passed on 31 /01/2019) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for reviewing the order dated 24.02.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8527/2014.
(2) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed one private complaint against the respondent for the offence under Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code (in short " IPC") on 27.01.2006 alleging that in the year 1994 in a newspaper " Lok Jagran as well as on 15.01.2001, 15.05.2005, 01.08.2005 and 01.10.2005 in a newspaper " Samaj Chintan" had published the news against the complainant causing injury to his reputation. This complaint has been registered as criminal case No.238/2006. On 17.04.2013 the respondent made an application under Section 245 (2) for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the respondent has no concern with "Lok Jagran" and its editor, publisher, printer or owner. The said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First class on 09.02.2014. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed criminal revision in the court of Session Indore which was registered as Criminal revision No.467/2014 and same was also 2 dismissed by 5th Additional Session Judge on 18.07.2014. The respondent thereupon filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 26.10.2014 praying for rejection of the complaint. The said application was registered as M.Cr.C.No.8527/2014. This application was allowed by this court vide order dated 24.02.2016 on the ground that the complaint has been filed in the year 2006 and the main bone of contention is that the news item had been published in the newspaper on 15.12.1994 and the complaint was filed in the year 2006 whereas the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. the cognizance must be taken within a period of 3 years from the date of occurrence, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.
(3) Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for reviewing of the aforesaid order on the ground that this court has considered complaint regarding the defamatory matter published only on 15.12.1994 in "Lok Jagran" and overlooked the defamatory publications made in " Samaj Chintan" on 15.01.2001, 15.05.2005, 01.08.2005 and 01.10.2005 which were expressly mentioned in the complaint and for the aforesaid defamatory publication,the complaint was made on 27.01.2006 very much the limitation period of three years as provided in Section 468 (2) (c) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, impugned order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record, thus said order may be set aside. Learned senior counsel for the applicant 3 has also placed reliance on the judgment in the cases of Raj Kapoor Vs. State (1980) 1 SCC 43, Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari, (1995) 1 SCC 170, Raj Narain Vs. State, AIR 1959 All. 315, In re Biyamma, AIR 1963 Mysore 326, Lal Singh Vs. State AIR 1970 P&H 32, State vs K.V. Rajendran (2008) 8 SCC 673, Abdul Basit Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary (2014) 10 SCC 754 and submitted that the High Court has power, amongst other matters, to alter or review its own judgment also, provided it is necessary to do so to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. (4) Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by contending that there is no power of review with the criminal court. After the judgment or order has been rendered then section 362 of Cr.P.C. prohibited the court to altering or reviewing its judgment. Once the judgment is signed even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
(5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(6) It is settled principle of law that there is no power of review with the Criminal Court after judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. provides that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the 4 absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Criminal Procedure Code. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision.
(7) In the case of Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr, (1990) 2 SCC 437), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where there are no such changed circumstances 5 and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
(8) In the present case this fact was on record while deciding the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.that the respondent published the defamatory matter against the applicant on 15.01.2001, 15.05.2005, 01.08.2005, 01.10.2005 in a newspaper "Samaj Chintan" however this fact has not been considered by this court while passing the impugned order, therefore, this court is of the view that in exercising the extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, and therefore which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
(9) In view of the above decision of law, this court has no option but to dismiss the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for review its order passed in M.Cr.C.No.8527/2014 dated 24.02.2016, hence, present petition is dismissed.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen Santosh Kumar Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452010, st=Madhya Pradesh, Tiwari 2.5.4.20=0302427ede38493e8c0c43f0be7a802b914f6c4be69964f9f552be 6e645bacc8, cn=Santosh Kumar Tiwari Date: 2019.01.31 18:30:03 -08'00'