Allahabad High Court
Jyoti Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 28 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151535
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4541 of 2009
Jyoti Jaiswal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
S.T. Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwary
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
In Re: Crl Misc. Recall Application No. 158882 of 2013.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant recall application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 29.04.2013. The order reads as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the revisionist prays for time to file rejoinder. He submits that he has received counter affidavit in the year 2011 but he has not disclosed the month when he has received this counter affidavit. Already two years have elapsed, hence, the prayer of the learned counsel for revisionist is highly belated and it is accordingly rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist was asked to submit his argument but instead of submitting his argument, he is disturbing the court and his not advancing the argument.
Heard and perused.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2009 passed by the VIIth Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.) Court No. 7 under section 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 311 and 506 I.P.C., whereby the dismissing the complaint of the revisionist under section 203 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant revisionist did not advance any argument only persuaded and disturbed the court hence his prayer has already been rejected.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned trial court has heard the perused the record.
The learned lower court has passed a detailed and well reasoned order according to section 203 Cr.P.C. and has come to the conclusion that there is no case made out to proceed further with the complaint and has dismissed the complaint of the revisionist accordingly. The exercise of the jurisdiction done by the learned lower court is well and in consonance with law. There is no illegality in the order so passed which may require any intervention by this court. The revision, therefore, appears to have no force in itself and is liable to be dismissed as such.
The revision is accordingly dismissed."
Learned counsel for the respondents and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer.
From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the revision was dismissed on merit.
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikram Bakshi and others v. R.P. Khosla and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1783 has highlighted the power of a criminal court to review or alter its own judgement or order. The relevant of paras of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
"27. The law relating to power of a criminal court to review or alter its own judgment or order is governed by the provisions of Section 362 of CrPC (equivalent to Section 403 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Provision explicitly provides that except for clerical and arithmetical error, no court shall alter or review its judgment. It is appropriate to refer to the bare provision of Section 362 of CrPC which reads as follows:
"362. Court not to alter judgment. - Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
27A. The comparison of the power of review of a civil court visa-vis power of criminal court to review or recall its own judgment or order arising out of criminal proceedings has been put to rest by numerous decisions of this Court. It would be appropriate at this juncture to discuss the relevant decisions of this court pertaining to review or recall power of criminal courts to ascertain the correct position of law before proceeding to refer and deal with the factual matrix of the present case.
28. The scope of Section 362 of CrPC has been discussed and elaborated by a three-judge bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, wherein it held that CrPC does not authorize High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction. Section 362 explicitly prohibits the court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no criminal court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed.
29. Similarly, in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, this Court observed that section 362 of CrPC is based on the acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court, in absence of specific statutory provisions, becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain fresh prayer for same relief.
30. In Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) it has been reiterated that Section 362 of CrPC imposes an embargo on a criminal court to alter and review its own judgment. Elaborating on the two relaxations envisioned by the legislature, this Court explained that an alteration or review is only feasible if it is so provided by the said legislation itself or by any other law in force. It was also clarified that such an attempt to alter or review is also not feasible or permissible through a reference to Section 482 of CrPC for being expressly barred under Section 362 of CrPC.
31. This Court, however, in exceptional cases, has carved out limited scope for exercise of review power by criminal courts. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra), it was observed that review can be distinguished between "procedural review" and "substantive review". A "procedural review" is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it, however, a "substantive review" is when error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense, this Court, held that no review lies on merits unless specifically provided under a statute.
32. This distinction has been further clarified in Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, wherein this Court has laid down certain grounds on which a criminal court can review or recall its judgment or order i.e. when the proceedings before it itself suffers from an inherent lack of jurisdiction or, a fraud is played upon court to obtain the order or, a mistake of court causing prejudice to party or the order was in ignorance of non-serving of necessary party or party had died and estate was not represented. It was further clarified that these exceptions were subjected to the limitation that such grounds cannot be raised to recall or review if they were available during the original action and was not availed.
33. In Ganesh Patel (supra) this Court held that application for recall seeking "procedural review" and not "substantive review" to which Section 362 of CrPC be attracted is permissible. This Court upheld the order of the High Court wherein it recalled the earlier order passed in the absence of the Respondent and based on false information.
34. A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well-settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarize would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this, despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a "procedural review" that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review" where the bar as contained in Section "362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu."
In the light of aforesaid judgment, the present recall application is barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C. and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
August 28, 2025
Aditya Tripathi
