TARAKANATH KAR versus LIPIKA KAR

TARAKANATH KAR versus LIPIKA KAR

The High Court erred in directing initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellant while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a matter relating to Section 125 CrPC; such directions are beyond the scope of the Court's powers in revision and must be quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Taraknath Kar; Respondent: Lipika Kar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Order in CRR No.970 of 2000 and Related Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent of quashing the directions for departmental proceedings; such directions stand quashed.
Legal Topics
Section 125 Cr PC Maintenance, Scope of High Court Revisional Jurisdiction, Departmental Proceedings Against Court Employees
Criminal Procedure Family Law Section 125 Cr PC Maintenance Scope of High Court Revisional Jurisdiction Departmental Proceedings Against Court Employees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taraknath Kar

Appellant

Lipika Kar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Order in CRR No.970 of 2000 and Related Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a Section 125 CrPC matter, can direct initiation of departmental proceedings against the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in directing initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellant while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a matter relating to Section 125 CrPC; such directions are beyond the scope of the Court's powers in revision and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent of quashing the directions for departmental proceedings; such directions stand quashed.

Orders

  • The directions given in the original and subsequent orders of the High Court for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant are quashed.