Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Ram Swaroop vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 3/24/2026 10:36:17 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768 2 MCRC-11676-2019 order suffers from patent illegality and has resulted in miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench failed to appreciate the material on record demonstrating that respondent No.2 had committed forgery by preparing a false and fabricated map and, on the basis thereof, procured mutation in his favour with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners by encroaching upon their land. It is submitted that the forgery was duly established during proceedings before the Commissioner in Jan Sunwai, and the petitioners, upon obtaining a certified copy of the forged map on 30.12.2013 and gaining knowledge of the fraudulent acts, lodged a police complaint on 29.10.2015 and subsequently filed a private complaint on 14.01.2016 when no action was taken. Pursuant thereto, the FIR was registered and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. It is further urged that the Coordinate Bench erred in treating the dispute as purely civil in nature and in applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Chhanni vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 July, 2006

"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. is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the 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. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment. (See: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 43; and Chhanni v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 3051). 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 38 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1