'HC can't revive quashed FIR for breach of compromise': Supreme Court cites Section 362 CrPC on limited scope of such power
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol pointed out Section 362 CrPC provided that a court shall not, once it has signed the judgment or final order disposing of a case, alter or review the same, except to correct an error clerical or arithmetic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: A 25-year-old AAP sarpanch dies by suicide
A 25-year-old sarpanch belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) allegedly died by suicide in Guru Har Sahai, Ferozepur, on Saturday night. According to available information, the sarpanch, an active member of AAP, allegedly shot himself with his licenced pistol at around 11.20 pm, shortly after posting an emotional ghazal on his Facebook account. As per the latest updates, the exact reason behind this extreme step remains unknown. The superintendent of police (investigation) stated that no suicide note was recovered and no written complaint has been lodged by the family of the deceased. Meanwhile, the body was cremated, and police have initiated proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Prisoner until proven innocent: A five-decade ordeal
Lakhan Pasi was sleeping inside his thatched hut in Gourey village when his wife Pyari Devi woke him up. It was around 4pm on August 5, 1977. Pyari told him that 15-16 people in the neighbourhood were fighting near the village well with sticks and lathis. 'When I went, I saw Deshraj had attacked Prabhu, who was bleeding. They had an old enmity. Police came and took Prabhu to the hospital, where doctors declared him dead,' said Lakhan. Night was falling so Lakhan came home and narrated the gory story to his family of eight people. He then went to sleep, waking up the next morning to slip back into his mundane routine of watering his field. According to Lakhan, Deshraj (single name) was angry with Prabhu (single name), his neighbour, as the latter's cattle would stray into his farm and destroy crops. A day before the murder, on August 4, 1977, there was a scuffle between the two on the same issue. Deshraj's mother, who tried to intervene, suffered a fracture in her hand. This infuriated Deshraj and his family leading to Prabhu's murder the next day. The next night, police barged into Lakhan's humble household, and frogmarched the 56-year-old man to the police station along with three other accused including Deshraj, Kaleshwar and Kallu. 'Prabhu's brother, Rajaram (single name), had included my name also in the first information report and the police arrested me along with three others,' Lakhan said. Earlier that evening, the UP Police had lodged an FIR at the Sarai Aqil Police Station under Sections 323 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt and attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder against Deshraj, his brother and brother-in-law, Kaleshwar and Kallu,respectively, and Lakhan, on a complaint by Rajaram. The sordid saga that began on August 6, 1977 ended finally last week, when the Allahabad high court acquitted Lakhan and said in its order dated May 2, 2025: 'Appellant no.1 Lakhan and appellant no.2 Deshraj shall be set free, if they are in jail, and in the event, they are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged subject to compliance of Section 437-A of the CrPC, provided they are not wanted in any other case.' The Dalit man walked out of jail on May 20,2025, at 104, having spent nearly five decades behind bars – his plight an indictment of police overreach, gaps in investigation, the problems faced by poor and marginised people in accessing justice, and endemic delays in the judicial system. Convicted in 1982 The FIR filed by Rajaram on August 6, 1977, alleged that on the previous night, at around 4pm, his cousin Pran was on his way to Vikrama Talab to bathe. The villagers, Lakhan, Deshraj, Kaleshwar and Kallu, armed with lathis, assaulted Pran, who then raised the alarm, the FIR said. Rajaram, along with his brothers Prabhu and Chandan, rushed to help him but they were also assaulted. Soon, witnesses Shukru, Gurudeen, Bhaiyalal also reached the spot to rescue the victims. Rajaram said Prabhu, who had received lathi blows on his neck, fell unconscious. According to court records, there was also an old enmity between Rajaram and Deshraj. After the FIR was lodged, the injured were referred to district hospital, Beli, Allahabad. The medical report said Prabhu sustained injuries to forehead, face, and chest. Prabhu died on August 7 at 10.05pm. The case was heard by the sessions court on August 17, 1980, which framed charges against the four on November 18, 1980, under sections 302/34 (for Prabhu's murder) and section 307/34 (Pran and Rajaram's assault). During the trial, Lakhan's counsel, hired by his wife Pyari, denied his involvement in the conflict. After further pleas, the four were convicted by the additional sessions judge of the Allahabad high court on November 2, 1982. The appeals made in the court after this remained pending for nearly five decades. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and four years rigorous imprisonment — both of which were to run concurrently. Two of the four accused, Kallu and Kaleshwar, died in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Their appeals were abated on September 17, 2015 and April 6, 2015, respectively, while Deshraj became and continues to be bedridden. The high court said in its May 2 order: 'The improbability of the prosecution regarding the genesis and events and the manner in which the incident were unfolded, created a doubt on the prosecution case, which has not been examined by the Court below. The defence has clearly probabilised its version, which cannot be overlooked. The findings of the Trial Court that prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, cannot be sustained. The accused appellants are clearly entitled to benefit of doubt in the matter.' Lakhan's family spent in lakhs and the family changed four counsel during the case. They sold most of their 13 bighas of land. Pyari Devi died in 2013. 'We were very young. I remember my mother selling everything to get my father acquitted. Till her last days, she kept on saying that my father was just standing and never hit anyone,' said Lakhan's daughter Asha Devi. Two jails, 48 years and countless delays later According to Lakhan, he was granted parole on three occasions, though he was unable to recollect the dates or the names of the counsel who appeared on his behalf. Lakhan spent his time in two jails. Soon after their arrest, the four of them were lodged in Naini Central Jail of Prayagraj (then Allahabad). The Kaushambi jail was established in 2014, after which they were moved to the district jail there. Things started moving last year, when the high court took suo motu cognisance of the case, while seeking to dispose of its pending cases. Kaushambi jail superintendent Ajitesh Kumar said the court appointed Manmohan Mishra as amicus curie in the case. Lakhan was finally acquitted on May 2, after the court gave its verdict stating the prosecution could not prove his involvement in the murder. 'For the forgoing reasons and discussion held above, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The Judgment and Order of conviction dated 02.11.1982 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.162 of 1980, is hereby set-aside,' said the order by the bench comprising justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Nand Prabha Shukla. However, things did not end there. 'Two days after the verdict, Lakhan's daughter Asha Devi apprised us that she could not afford a counsel, to facilitate Lakhan's release, owing to poverty. I wrote a letter to DLSA (District Legal Services Authority), Kaushambi on May 4, which appointed advocate Ankit Maurya to expedite Lakhan's release,' Kumar said. The DLSA or the legal aid committee of high court do not directly step into the release process of a prisoner. The jailer, who after assessing the inability of a prisoner to hire a counsel owing to financial constraints, gets in touch with the DLSA through an application signed by the prisoner. Kumar added that even with a counsel, it took 18 days for Lakhan to step out of jail due to administrative delays. 'It took 18 days of struggle against these hurdles and we received his release order on the morning of May 20. He was released in the afternoon,' Kumar added. 'Several factors lead to cases pending in appeal for long durations in high courts. Lack of surety bonds, non-availability of adequate strength of judges, lack of resources deterring hiring of counsel by accused, the accused being out on bail for long periods, etc., could be some reasons,' said former Allahabad high court judge, justice Pankaj Naqvi. The same applies to delays in the filing of charge sheets. Retired IPS officer and former IG (Prayagraj Zone) KP Singh said there should be a provision to fix the transfer deadline of every police personnel so that new cases are not allocated to an officer nearing his transfer date. 'Presently, on transfer of an investigating officer, the probe is left in a lurch with the new incumbent unaware of the details of the case. The new officer sometimes begins the probe all over again, resulting in delay in filing of charge sheet,' Singh said. Helpless but indignant It's been almost two weeks since Lakhan was released. Lying on a cot under a roofed verandah of his daughter's one room, mud wall house in Pashchim Sharira area of Kaushambi, the 104-year-old has a shadow on his gaunt face. His family of five daughters and a son has withered – two have died. He barely knows his grandchildren, who were born when he was in jail. Asha Devi said her father does not talk much or interact with anyone. 'He keeps lying on the cot and stares at the roof most of the day. At times he remembers my mother and asks what happened to her in her last days,' she said, with tears in her eyes. She is helpless but indignant. 'Should any innocent person be kept behind bars for so long?' she asked. Lakhan appears resigned to his fate. 'What had I done? The officials didn't listen to me, and sent me to jail. Now what is left?' he asked. 'Everyone is dead. Only I am alive.'
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
'If verdict out abroad but trial on in India, case must be heard at length'
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court observed that a case in which the judgment was rendered by a foreign court, and was also sub judice in India, must be heard at length. The court of Additional Sessions Judge Sumit Dass made the observation on May 5 while hearing the submissions of Shravan Gupta, an accused in a money laundering case. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Gupta was convicted by a court in Abu Dhabi last year for the same offences as charged by the Enforcement Directorate - fraud, deception, and embezzlement. Gupta and six others, including a private company, filed a revision petition against a magisterial court order of November 2024 in which the court issued them and others summons for the offences of fraud and cheating. Meanwhile, the court stayed proceedings in the matter until July 4, the next hearing date. The court also issued notice to the ED and the state to file a reply in the matter. The case is related to a complaint filed by Emaar India Limited against MGF Development Limited, Gupta and 11 others for large-scale fraud and siphoning of Rs 180 crore. In April, Gupta moved an application before the court, submitting that on February 27, 2024, a court in Abu Dhabi had convicted of the same offences as in the present case. "Passing of the said judgment was concealed by the complainant from this court as well as from the trial court," the plea stated. Gupta pleaded that he cannot be prosecuted again, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The entire prosecution is bad in law in view of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 300 CrPC, Gupta stated.
