Case: Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa

3. In this petition the respondent No. 1 contended that he was conducting several civil/criminal cases filed by M/s. Falcon Breeders Private Limited as well as its Directors against the appellant and respondent No. 8. It was alleged that with a motive to compel the respondent No. 1-Advocate to withdraw as counsel of the said company and its Directors, the appellant and respondent No. 8 hatched a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in false and fabricated criminal cases. They were alleged to have mixed up with one Ranjit Singh, Deputy District Attorney (Legal) attached with the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Roopnagar, Punjab and managed the registration of a case against the respondent No. 1 and his clients being FIR No. 151 dated 10.12.1988 at Police Station Kharar for various offence under the Indian Penal Code. In furtherance of the alleged conspiracy a raid was conducted on 11.10.1988 in the house of one Ravnit Singh, a client of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 reached at the house of Ravnit Singh, when called, and found there a contingent of police. It is alleged that the moment the respondent No. 1 came out of his car, he was roughed up and thrown in an open truck. He was taken to Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh where DDR No. 24 dated 11.10.1988 was registered. He further alleged that thereafter he was whisked away to Police Station, Kharar. His arms were tied behind his back and a piece of cloth was tied around his eyes. He was therafter taken to an unknown destination and was pushed in an isolated room where the appellant herein and respondent No. 8 were already waiting. He was subjected to criminal torture by using third degree methods for about 2-3 hours. The respondent No. 6 was also alleged to have caused injuries upon the said Advocate with a sharp knife below the knees, without provocation. Red chillies are stated to have been sprinkled on his fresh wounds with the object to harm, injure and terrorise him. He was threatened to be eliminated by the police personnel and the appellant. After the torture process, the eyes of the respondent No. 1 were again blind-folded and he was brought back to Police Station, Kharar where his wife Mrs. Gursharan Kaur had reached by that time. Upon her raising hue and cry he was sent to Civil Hospital, Kharar for conduct of his medical examination where he was examined by Dr. Balwinder Singh. He was stated to have been released on 11.10.1988 after about 3 hours by the order of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kharar. He claimed to have filed a written compliant in Police Station, Kharar for registration of FIR against the alleged culprits. The copies of the complaint are stated to have been sent to Chief Minister, Punjab, Chief Secretary, Punjab, Principal Secretary, Punjab, the Director General of Police, Police SSP, Roopnagar, Chief Justice of India and the Home Minister of India. As no action was taken on his complaint, he filed a petition in the High Court with prayers as noted hereinabove.4. After hearing the respondent No. 1, who appeared in person, the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of his petition on 7.1.1999 with directionshearing the petitioner, who is an Advocate himself, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for direct registration of the case is made out and a preliminary enquiry is required. In these circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to the SSP, Roopnagar, to look into the allegations of the petitioner and if he comes to the conclusion that some cognizable offence has been committed by respondents 7 and 8 or anybody else, he shall order for the registration of the case. If the allegations of the petitioner are found to be false, the petitioner shall be prosecuted under Section 182IPC. The petitioner can lead such evidence in support of his case before the SSP who shall conclude the investigation within 3 months from the receipt of the copy of the order.After the disposal of the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and consequently action taken in pursuance to the directions issued against the SSP, Roopnagar, the respondent No. 1 again filed a Miscellaneous Petition which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-15 of 1999 and disposed of on 30.4.1999 by the same learned Single Judge, apparently without notice to the appellant herein or any other respondent in that petition, with directionspetitioner submits that he has filed a Criminal Complaint on 9.3.1999 in the Court of Mrs. Neelam Arora JMIC, Kharar and she has taken cognizance and in this view of the matter he does want to prosecute his allegations with the SSP, who may be directed not to take any action because the matter is already subjudice before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Therefore, now directions are given to SSP Roopnagar not to comply with directions dated 7.1.1999 and not to file any calendra under Section 182IPC against the petitioner.The appellant herein also filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20658 of 1999 on 31st May, 1999 with prayer for quashing the Court order dated 30th April, 1999 on the ground of its being illegal, against the well established principles of law and being a review of order dated 7.1.1999 not permissible under the criminal law. The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21st July, 1999. The present appeals have been filed with prayer for quashing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 30th April, 1999 and 21st July, 1999 mainly on the ground of the orders being without jurisdiction.7. The respondent No. 1 who appeared in person tried to justify the impugned orders with submissions that the High Court has the power to pass any order in any proceedings at any stage, in interest of justice to eliminate any threat to a fair trial. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar & Arn., AIR 1958 SC 376 .

Reasoning:
Section 362 of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a mater is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specifically statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same 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 official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. The reliance of the respondent on Talab Haji Hussains case (supra) is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that inherent power conferred on High Court under Section 561A (Section 482 of the new Code) has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7.1.1999. The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment.