Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court allowed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permitting the rectification of specific factual errors in its earlier order dated December 2, 2024. The Court found “cogent grounds” to allow the corrections, emphasizing that the errors were inadvertent and factual in nature.
Facts:
- Background of the Application:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. prior to the BNSS enactment), seeking rectification of certain paragraphs in the earlier judicial order. The application specifically sought to correct the following:- Paragraph 2(e): Clarifying the procedural history of a petition to quash FIR No. 579/2017.
- Paragraph 2(g): Revising details about a complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- Paragraph 35: Providing a clear account of the prosecutrix’s repeated filing of complaints and FIRs.
- Errors Identified:
- The earlier order did not accurately reflect the dismissal of a petition to quash an FIR on grounds of settlement.
- It misstated facts regarding a complaint withdrawn before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
- It required clarity on the prosecutrix’s conduct and its implications for the case.
- State’s Response:
The Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, did not object to the corrections sought by the petitioner.
Issues:
- Rectification of Errors:
Whether the factual inaccuracies in the previous order warranted judicial correction. - Scope of Section 528 BNSS, 2023:
Whether the application under Section 528 was maintainable for the rectification of factual errors.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended:
- The errors in the earlier order were purely factual and inadvertent, arising from an oversight during drafting.
- These inaccuracies could lead to a misinterpretation of the procedural history and factual context of the case.
- Correcting these errors was essential for ensuring clarity and justice.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent (State) submitted that:
- It had no objections to the corrections.
- The errors appeared genuine and rectifiable under the inherent powers of the Court.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined the scope of its powers under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, which allows rectification of judicial orders to ensure the delivery of justice. Key points included:
- Inherent Powers: Section 528 empowers courts to correct errors and omissions to prevent miscarriage of justice.
- Judicial Accuracy: Courts must ensure their orders accurately reflect the facts and procedural history of cases.
The Court noted that such corrections align with established legal principles ensuring justice is served without procedural ambiguity.
Precedent Analysis:
The judgment did not refer to specific precedents but rested on well-accepted judicial principles:
- Courts possess inherent powers to rectify errors that could distort the factual and legal narrative of cases.
- Misstatements in orders can undermine confidence in judicial processes, necessitating timely correction.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court undertook a detailed review of:
- The application filed by the petitioner.
- The earlier judicial order dated December 2, 2024.
- Related documents, including petitions and complaints cited in the order.
Upon review, the Court found:
- The errors were purely factual, involving misstatements about dismissed petitions and withdrawn complaints.
- These inaccuracies were significant enough to warrant rectification to prevent any misinterpretation of the judicial record.
- The corrections would clarify the procedural history and context, ensuring that future reliance on the order would not lead to errors.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the corrections and directed that the rectified text be incorporated into the earlier order. The specific changes included:
- Paragraph 2(e): It clarified that a petition (CRL.M.C. 1588/2020) seeking to quash FIR No. 579/2017 was dismissed without delving into its merits.
- Paragraph 2(g): It corrected the procedural details about a complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was later withdrawn.
- Paragraph 35: It noted that the prosecutrix’s repeated filing of FIRs and complaints, despite being in a consensual relationship with the petitioner, undermined the prima facie allegations against the petitioner.
The Court directed these changes to be treated as a corrigendum to the original order.
Implications:
The judgment highlights:
- Judicial Accountability: The High Court’s willingness to rectify its orders emphasizes its commitment to fairness and accuracy.
- Reliance on Section 528 BNSS, 2023: The case showcases the utility of inherent powers provided under Section 528 to correct inadvertent errors, preserving the integrity of judicial records.
- Impact on Future Cases: The corrections ensure that future references to the earlier order will reflect accurate facts, preventing procedural and interpretational issues.