Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a subordinate criminal court can restore a complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and thereafter proceed to summon the accused.
Analysis: The dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant is a final order so far as the accused is concerned. In the absence of an express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enabling a subordinate criminal court to recall or restore such an order, the court becomes functus officio after dismissal. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is vested in the High Court and not in subordinate courts, and Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not permit recall of such an order except for clerical or arithmetical correction. The restoration order, and all proceedings founded on it, were therefore without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The issue is answered against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner; the subordinate court had no jurisdiction to restore the dismissed complaint or issue summons thereafter.
Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate criminal court has no inherent power to recall or restore a complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant, and after such dismissal it becomes functus officio.