A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for expunging certain adverse remarks from the judgment dated 30-9-1989 in Criminal Misc. No. 6057-M of 1988.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on a petition (Crl. Misc. No. 6057-M of 1988) filed by one Inder Dev Gaur, FIR No. 228 dated 2.8.1987 under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 lodged at the instance of Mr. M.R. Sachdeva, who was Senior Postmaster, was quashed. In the last paragraph of the order quashing the FIR it was observed as under. "After careful consideration and for the reasons mentioned above, I find that the present FIR has been initiated for ulterior reasons and it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court." The petitioner seeks expunction of the words 'ulterior reasons lest these words should affect his service career and it is in these circumstances that he has filed the present petition. 2. On being asked to do, the petitioner submitted better particulars along with supporting documents in an attempt to explain each and every circumstance relied upon in the principal order referred to above. His effort is to show that the opposite party Inder Dev Gaur had failed to bring the totality of the facts or had twisted some of the facts. The petitioner had no chance to explain those circumstances as he was not made a party in the original proceedings under section 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR filed by Inder Dev Gaur. The petitioner had, therefore, been condemned unheard which was against principle of natural justice and which was a sufficient ground in itself to expunge the aforesaid remarks. A detailed reply has been filed by Inder Dev Gaur controverting the facts and reiterating that the previous FIR had been lodged by the petitioner against him with ulterior motives. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for Inder Dev Gaur, respondent No. 2. The objection is that under section 362 of the Code, once the judgment or final order disposing of a case has been signed, the same cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Reference was made to Ajit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1982 CLR 363 (FB). The learned Judges of the Full Bench heavily relied on State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc, AIR 1979 SC 87. In the last mentioned authority it was held that the word no court used in Section 362 of the Code includes all Courts and applies in respect of all judgments. It was further held that inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A (under the old Code cannot be invoked for enabling the Court to review its own order which is specifically prohibited by Section 369(Old Code) analogous to Section 362 of the present Code. Learned counsel for the respondent specially emphasised that in the context of inherent powers of the High Court, is was specifically laid down in the aforesaid authority that inherent power cannot relate to any of the matters specifically dealt with by the Code [vide paragraph 16 in Ram Chander Agarwala's case (supa)]. The contention therefore, is that if any words were deleted from the aforesaid judgment, it would amount to reviewing the judgment which is not permissible.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, is that the High Court has not only the power under section 482 of the Code to expunge the offending remarks but a duty to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel referred to Vinod Kumar Jain and others V. J.P. Sharma and ors., 1986 (2) CLR 110 in which this question directly arose. Malik Sharief-Ud-Din. J. who had earlier passed certain remarks cexpunction of which was sought in a later petition held that the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to delete and expunge the offending remarks in the circumstances justifying the said course.;