Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal, Restores Criminal Petitions: S. Ramesh & Ors. vs. State (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 02, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 306

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a High Court dismiss criminal petitions after recalling its earlier order that had disposed of the same petitions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this procedural question in a recent case. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the criminal petitions after recalling its previous order, which had disposed of the petitions based on a compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellants had initially filed three Criminal Original Petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking to quash criminal proceedings against them. These petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C). The High Court, on March 1, 2018, allowed these petitions based on a compromise between the parties. Subsequently, the second respondent filed applications to recall these orders, which the High Court allowed on May 4, 2018. However, while recalling the earlier orders, the High Court also dismissed the original criminal petitions. This led to the appellants filing appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Madras initially allowed three Criminal Original Petitions (Crl. O.P. Nos. 6231, 6322 & 6232/2018) on March 1, 2018, based on a compromise between the parties. These petitions sought to quash criminal cases (CC No.1725/2013, CC No.4228/2015 and CC No.6766/2014). Subsequently, the second respondent filed Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 6611, 6612 and 6613 of 2018 to recall the orders dated March 1, 2018. The High Court, after examining the grounds for recall, allowed these applications and recalled its earlier orders. However, the High Court also dismissed the original criminal petitions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. states:

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

This section grants the High Court inherent powers to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the legal process. The High Court invoked this power to initially quash the criminal proceedings based on the compromise and later to recall its order.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court, after recalling its earlier order dated 01.03.2018, should have restored the criminal original petitions to their original status for a hearing on merits. Instead, the High Court erroneously dismissed the petitions without assigning any reasons. The appellants contended that the effect of recalling the order was to revive the petitions, and they should have been heard on their merits. The appellants argued that the High Court’s action of simultaneously restoring and dismissing the petitions was not legally sound.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the High Court was justified in recalling its earlier order due to the grounds presented by them. They did not specifically address the issue of the High Court dismissing the original petitions after recalling its earlier order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the core issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the criminal original petitions after recalling its earlier order dated 01.03.2018.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions other than Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in its judgment. The Court’s reasoning was based on the procedural aspect of recalling an order and its effect on the original proceedings.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any authorities but relied on the interpretation of the effect of recalling an order. The Court held that the recall of the order dated 01.03.2018 meant that the criminal petitions were restored to their original status and should have been heard on merits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by procedural correctness and the principle of natural justice. The Court emphasized that once an order is recalled, the original proceedings are revived and should be decided on their merits. The Court found that the High Court’s action of simultaneously recalling the order and dismissing the petitions was procedurally incorrect and did not allow for a fair hearing of the petitions.

The Court stated, “In our considered opinion, the effect of recalling the order dated 01.03.2018 was that the three criminal original petitions stood restored to their respective numbers for their disposal on merits in accordance with law as if the order dated 01.03.2018 had not been passed in those cases and that they remained pending for their disposal on merits.”

The Court further noted, “The High Court, therefore, after recalling the orders passed on 01.03.2018 should have fixed the three criminal original petitions for their final hearing on merits. Instead of doing that, the High Court, on the one hand, restored the cases and, on the other hand, dismissed them also.”

The Court concluded, “This approach of the High Court, in our view, was not legal and hence to that extent, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ When a High Court recalls an order, the original proceedings are restored to their original status.
• ✓ The High Court cannot simultaneously recall an order and dismiss the original proceedings without a hearing on merits.
• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural correctness and natural justice in judicial proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court of Judicature at Madras to restore the three criminal original petitions to their original numbers and decide them on merits in accordance with law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a High Court recalls an order, the original proceedings are restored to their original status and should be decided on their merits. This clarifies the procedural aspect of recalling an order and ensures that parties are not deprived of a hearing on merits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order to the extent it dismissed the criminal original petitions. The Court held that the High Court was correct in recalling its earlier order but erred in simultaneously dismissing the petitions. The Supreme Court restored the petitions and directed the High Court to decide them on merits. This judgment reinforces the principle that when an order is recalled, the original proceedings are revived and should be decided on their merits.