DP Act

Merely because Respondent 1 was an Advocate, did not justify the issuance of directions at his request without notice of the other side. Of late, we notice that the High Courts are entertaining writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, so also under Section 482 CrPC and passing and interfering with various orders granting or rejecting request for bail, which is the function of ordinary Criminal Court. We are of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in not only entertaining the criminal miscellaneous application in a disposed of writ petition, but also passing an order not to arrest the 1st respondent till the conclusion of the trial. Grant of bail or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular Criminal Court and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, not justified in usurping their powers. Once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors. In the instant case, the High Court has entertained a petition in a disposed of criminal writ petition and granted reliefs, which is impermissible in law. 14. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court, with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by 1st respondent to the appellant, within a period of two months.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1693…. OF 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2575 of 2010] Nazma .. Appellant Versus Javed @ Anjum .. Respondent J U D G M E N T K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are, in this appeal, … Continue reading →