145;Correcting factual error doesn146;t mean order recall146;

The Supreme Court has told high courts across the country not to overstep the limits of their power by playing a pro-active role even when faced with a legal vacuum.

The Supreme Court has told high courts across the country not to overstep the limits of their power by playing a pro-active role even when faced with a legal vacuum.

8216;8216;No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law, which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law,8217;8217; said a Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S H Kapadia. The SC was hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court decision in a case in which the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Raghunathpur in Bihar erroneously summoned two women in an assault case after the cops had vouched for their innocence.

Striking down the HC order, the SC said 8216;8216;all courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong in course of administration of justice8230; while exercising powers under this section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision,8217;8217; the court said.

Stressing that advancement of justice was the final object of the judicial process, the apex court said 8216;8216;authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice,8217;8217; the court said.

Complainant Dhrup Narain Pandey had named five persons, including three women, in the FIR registered on August 20, 1999. Police, after investigation claimed the women were not involved in the matter. The CJM took cognizance of the chargesheet, but summoned besides the two men, two of the women who had been given clean chit.

Later, he CJM realised that what had happened was an error and ordered striking off the names of the two women. This was challenged before the court of Additional Sessions Judge. The ASJ set aside the order saying it amounted to the CJM recalling its own order, something prohibited under Section 362 of the CrPC. The ASJ8217;s view was upheld by the Patna High Court.

However, the SC held 8216;8216;the HC was not justified8217;8217; in upholding the ASJ8217;s decision.