Jharkhand High Court
Hasim Ansari @ Md. Hashim Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:28676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2652 of 2025
....
Hasim Ansari @ Md. Hashim Ansari, aged about 50 years old,
son of Late Mumtaz Ansari, resident of Village- Piska Nagri, Post
Office-Nagri, Police Station- Nagri, District- Ranchi
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sahnaj Khatoon @ Shahnaj Khatoon @ Shahnaj Khatoon wife
of Hasim Ansari @ Md. Hashim Ansari, daughter of Ramjan
Ansari, resident of Pokario, PS and PS- Chanho, District- Ranchi
...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Md. Haider Ali, Advocate
For the State : None.
......
02/12.09.2025 This Cr. M. P. No. 2652 of 2025 has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for modification/recalling of the order dated
21.02.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1017 of
2018.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, learned
counsel for the State is not present.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after
passing of order dated 21.02.2023 by this Court, the parties held
mediation before the learned Civil Court, Ranchi and the case has
been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party
no. 2 and as such, the order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 1017 of 2018 by this Court may be recalled or
modified.
4. None appears on behalf of the State.
5. From perusal of the records, it appears that this Cr. M. P.
2025:JHHC:28676
No. 2652 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for
modification/recalling of the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by this
Court in Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2018 in connection with
Complainant Case No. 526 of 2011.
6. It appears that this Court had already dismissed the
Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2018 vide order dated 21.02.2023
by affirming the judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.184 of 2017 by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 526 of 2011
whereby learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi has
dismissed the Appeal with modification in the order of sentence
dated 26.08.2017 passed by Sri. Dharmendra Kumar, learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-cum-Additional Munsif-XIII,
Ranchi by upholding the conviction of the petitioner for the
offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
however, he has modified the sentence from R.I. for two (2) years
to S. I. for eighteen (18) months for the offence under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, fine amount and default
sentence remained intact, although vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 26.08.2017 passed by Sri. Dharmendra
Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-cum-Additional
Munsif-XIII, Ranchi, the petitioner had been convicted for the
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and had been sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and
to pay the fine of Rs.5000/-.
7. It reveals that this Court has already dismissed the
Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2018 on merit. There is no
provision to modify/recall to the final order passed in Criminal
Revision.
2025:JHHC:28676
8. It has been held in the case of State of Kerela versus M.M
Manikantan Nair reported in (2001) 4 SCC 752 and in the case of
Hari Singh Mann versus Harbhajan Singh Bajwa reported in
(2001) 1 SCC 169 that Cr.P.C does not authorize the High Court to
review its judgment or order. The Court become functus-officio
once the matter is finally disposed of by the High Court.
9. It is well settled in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Bakshi and Ors. Versus R.
P. Khosla and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1783 that
the order cannot be reviewed or altered in criminal proceeding
except for correcting clerical or arithmetical error.
10. It has been held in the case of Vikram Bakshi and Others
versus R.P Khosla and Another reported in (2025) SCC Online
1783 at Para Nos. 33 and 34, as follows:-
"Para-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.
Para-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
2025:JHHC:28676
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.
Para-34A:- Having said that, the following exceptional
circumstances may be identified, wherein a criminal court is
empowered to alter or review its own judgment or a final order
under Section 362 CrPC:
a. Such power is expressly conferred upon court by CrPC or any
other law for the time being in force or;
b. The court passing such a judgment or order lacked inherent
jurisdiction to do so or;
c. A fraud or collusion is being played on court to obtain such
judgment or order or;
d. A mistake on the part of court caused prejudice to a party or;
e. Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party or death leading to
estate being non-represented, not brought to notice of court while
passing such judgment or order.
It needs to be reiterated that all these exceptions are only
exercisable for seeking a recall or review of an order or judgment, if
a ground that is raised was not available or existent at the time of
original proceedings before the Court. Mere fact that the said
ground, although available, was not raised or pressed during the
concerned proceedings, does not provide for an exemption to the
parties to assert it as a ground. Moreover, the said power cannot be
invoked as a means to circumvent the finality of the judicial process
or mistakes and/or errors in the decision which are attributable to a
conscious omission by the parties."
2025:JHHC:28676
11. Thus, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in
this Cr. M. P. No. 2652 of 2025.
12. Accordingly, Cr. M. P. No. 2652 of 2025 is, hereby
dismissed.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated 12.09.2025
Kamlesh/
