The High Court affirms that clerical or typographical errors in judicial orders, especially relating to terms such as “withdrawn as settled” instead of “disposed of as settled” in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cases, may be corrected by the trial Magistrate under Section 362 CrPC; settlement thus remains enforceable once the correction is made. Judgment serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction and clarifies Magistrates’ procedural powers under the DV Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CM(M)/341/2024 of SHABIR AHMAD BHAT Vs YASMEENA AND ORS. (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE) |
| CNR | JKHC010045952024 |
| Date of Registration | 06-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the territorial jurisdiction of the J&K High Court |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether a Magistrate can correct a clerical or typographical error in an order disposing of a DV Act petition, and whether such a correction allows for enforcement of a settlement. |
| Ratio Decidendi | If a judicial order records a settlement as “withdrawn as settled” due to a clerical or typographical error instead of “disposed of as settled,” the trial Magistrate is empowered to correct such an error under Section 362 CrPC. Upon correction, the settlement recorded between the parties becomes enforceable. The High Court set aside the enforcing order and directed that respondents may move the Magistrate for rectification; the application should be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged an order directing salary deduction for settlement enforcement in a DV Act case, arguing withdrawal nullified enforceability. Respondents asserted the withdrawal language was a clerical error, and the record should reflect “disposed of as settled”. The High Court agreed Magistrates may correct such errors under Section 362 CrPC, thereby supporting enforceability of the settlement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; possible persuasive value before the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies the power of Magistrates under Section 362 CrPC to correct clerical or typographical errors in final orders, specifically in the context of settlements under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
- Establishes that a settlement recorded in a proceeding remains enforceable if the court order is corrected to reflect the parties’ true agreement.
- Emphasizes the importance of precise judicial recording of settlements and the procedural remedy if errors occur.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to seek rectification of erroneous records that threaten the enforceability of settlements in similar DV Act or other criminal law proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner argued that because the Magistrate’s order in the DV Act proceeding recorded the petition as “withdrawn as settled” rather than “disposed of as settled,” the settlement could not be enforced.
- The respondents submitted, and the Court accepted, that this was a clerical/typographical mistake.
- The Court held that, as per Section 362 CrPC, a Magistrate is empowered to correct clerical errors or omissions in his orders.
- Upon such correction, the lawful enforceability of the settlement is restored.
- The High Court set aside the enforcing order and permitted respondents to apply to the trial Magistrate for correction; this application is to be decided expeditiously and after hearing both parties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The settlement could not be enforced because the judicial order recorded withdrawal, not disposal as settled.
Respondents (R1 & R2)
- The indication of “withdrawn as settled” was a typographical or clerical error.
- The record should correctly state the petition was “disposed of as settled” per the true settlement.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where the petitioner faced a salary deduction order to enforce a settlement in favour of respondent No.1. The contested point was the wording in the Magistrate’s final order, which stated the petition was “withdrawn as settled,” prompting the petitioner to argue against enforceability. Respondents maintained this was only a clerical slip. The High Court addressed whether the settlement could be enforced after correction of the error.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 362 CrPC was analyzed in detail, confirming the power of courts to correct clerical or typographical mistakes in judicial orders.
- Article 227 of the Constitution was cited as the source of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly Section 12, provided the statutory context for the original proceedings.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reaffirms the available procedural remedy for correction of clerical or typographical errors in judicial orders that affect substantive rights, notably including enforceability of settlements.
- Directions were issued for expeditious hearing upon such application seeking correction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms the existing procedural power of Magistrates/courts to correct clerical mistakes under Section 362 CrPC.