Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Dharam Singh Meena S/O Shri Chauthmal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2023 cites

Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 8 January, 1981

7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Section 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal [(1981) 1 SCC 500 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 188] , that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:46:17 PM) (7 of 8) [CRLMP-733/2021] prohibited by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power. We find that the impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials. The High Court has grievously erred in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Mostt. Simrikhia vs Smt. Dolley Mukherjee @ Smt. ... on 2 March, 1990

10. A plain reading of Section 482 Cr.P.C. showcases that nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. However, the embargo that lies under Section 362 Cr.P.C. which prohibits a Court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order disposing of a case, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, applies to Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well. The Supreme Court has time and again held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override the bar of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. In the case of Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 138 - M F Beevi - Full Document
1