The Supreme Court of India has observed that a Magistrate who passes an order on settlement between parties under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has the power to recall or set aside the Order if terms of the same are violated, and it will not hit by the bar contained under Section 362 of CrPC.
The judgement came out in a case titled as SANJEEV KAPOOR vs. CHANDANA KAPOOR & ORS.
CASE BACKGROUND
In the present case, Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.1 against appellant and Due to the reconciliation efforts made by the Family Court, parties settled the matter amicably on the terms and conditions. As such the maintenance petition was,thus, disposed of by the Family Court on the basis of the settlement.
Appellant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the settlement and in turn the Respondent filed an application for recalling the order passed by the Family Court on the basis of the settlement and the same was allowed by the Family Court by order dated 05.01.2019. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court which was rejected by the High Court.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant(Husband) filed an appeal before Supreme Court.
The Issue
Whether setting aside of the order disposing of the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and restoring the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was contrary to Section 362 Cr.P.C.
The Supreme court referred to Sections 125 and 362 of Cr.P.C. and observed that:
Section 362 Cr.P.C. begins with the word “save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force” which clearly means that rigour as contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in following two conditions: –
i) Save as otherwise provided by the code of
Criminal Procedure.
ii) any other law for the time being in force.
Stating the above, The Bench held:
The legislature was aware that thereare and may be the situations where altering or reviewing of criminal court judgment is contemplated in the Code itself or any other law for the time being in force.
The Bench then examined the exceptions provided by CrPC itself, and explored the legislative scheme of Section 125 CrPC:“Section 125 CrPC is social justice legislation which orders for maintenance for wives, children, and parents. Maintenance of wives, children, and parents is a continuous obligation enforced.”
In regard to the above statement, the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188] was cited.
This case allows for a purposive interpretation to be given to Section 125 as the purpose is to achieve the constitutional vision of social justice as is enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a duty is placed on the shoulders of the Court to advance the cause of social justice and therefore, during the course of interpretation, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.
The Bench stated:
“A closer look of Section 125 CrPC itself indicates that the Court after passing judgment or final order in the proceeding under Section 125 CrPC does not become functus officio. The Section itself contains express provisions where order passed under Section 125 can be cancelled or altered which is noticeable from under Section 125(1), Section 125(5) and Section 127 of CrPC.”
The usage of the expression “as the Magistrate from time to time direct” in Section 125(1) contemplates the continuous jurisdiction that can be exercised by the Magistrate when the occasion arises and that the Magistrate does not become functus officio after passing an order under Section 125.
The Bench then held that the embargo contained under Section 362 of the CrPC can be relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. As the submissions of the counsel for the Appellant were founded on this issue only, the Bench did not accept the same. It further added that Section 125 CrPC has to be interpreted in a manner as to advance justice and to protect a woman for whose benefit the provisions have been engrafted.
The judgement has been delivered by Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy on 19-02-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
1 thought on “Magistrate’s Power to Review Order Passed Under Sec 125 CrPC will not hit by the embargo contained Under Sec 362 CrPC : Supreme Court [Read Judgment]”