Smt Megha Goyal vs Suresh Kumar on 3 February, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958




                                             1                            MCRC-37983-2023
             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AT GWALIOR
                                       BEFORE
                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37983 of 2023
                           SMT MEGHA GOYAL AND OTHERS
                                        Versus
                             SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
         Appearance:
                  Shri Mukesh Kumar Bhateley - Advocate for the petitioners alongwith
         Shri Omprakash Mandil - Petitioner No.2 in person.
                  Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.

         RESERVED ON              :-    19/01/2026
         DELIVERED ON              :-   3/02/2026
                                                 ORDER

The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed seeking recall/modification of the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 34575/2019, whereby the proceedings of SST No.70 of 2018 registered under Sections 120-B, 440, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11/13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Evam Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981

were set aside. Relevant extract of the order dated 10.07.2023 read thus:

"The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of impugned order dated 17.09.2018 and other consequential proceedings in SST No.70/2018 registered under Sections 440, 395, 120- B of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act pending before NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

2 MCRC-37983-2023

learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (MPDVPK Act) Gwalior.

In brief, facts of the case are that present petitioners are employees of GDA situated at 1 Ravi Nagar, Khedapati Road Gwalior and are Public Servant and serving as Superintendent Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Sub-Engineer respectively. The GDA has developed a residential/commercial premises for enlargement and welfare of transportation in Gwalior which is renowned at Transport Nagar, Gwalior in which various transport business are being run on the premises of GDA, various land was obtained on agreement from Janak Grih Nirman Co- operative society as per Awas Neeti in whch survey number 579 and 580 were also included which was also notified by the state government though gazette notification. That, on survey no. 579 and 580 of Gram Shankarpur Gwalior obtained by GDA for development, one Ravi Goyal who is relative of respondents was raising illegal construction and encroachment over the survey no. 579 and 580 of gram Shankarpur Gwalior owned by GDA. GDA employees when tried to stop the encroachment, Ravi misbehaved with the staff of GDA and did not stopped his encroachment against which a show cause notice was issued to Ravi Goyal either to satisfy the GDA with his documents of title or to remove the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

3 MCRC-37983-2023 encroachment made by Ravi Goayl. Proceedings were initiated to remove the encroachment and after issuing show cause notice to Ravi Goyal appeared before the authority but din not submitted his document of title over the survey No.579 and 580 and therefore, the Chief Executive Officer of GDA passed the order against Ravi Goyal for removing encroachment under Section 248 of MP Land Revenue Code. After passing the order by the Chief Executive Officer of GDA, the notices for removing the encroachment were issued to Ravi Goyal but even when the encroachment was not removed, the officer of GDA issued the letter to petitioner No.1 to remove the encroachment made by Ravi Goyal with the help of police and Municipal Corporation Anti-Encroachment wing. In compliance of the letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer GDA, petitioners made a team and went on spot to remove the encroachment on 27.12.2016 from land survey No.579 and 580 and removed the encroachment made by Ravi Goyal. In discharge of public duties assigned by the CEO, GDA petitioners removed the encroachment of Ravi Goyal from disputed premises. That, against the action taken by the GDA authorities, his sister-in-law of Ravi Goyal i.e. respondent No.1 and another person respondent No.2 filed various frivolous complaints against the petitioners regarding loot and dacoity of her NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

4 MCRC-37983-2023 construction material by stating that petitioners have illegally removed the construction without giving prior notice to respondent No.1 and she was validly constructing the premises with prior permission and police did not fine any substance in her complaints then, respondents filed frivolous complaints against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that respondents with collusion of her brother-in-law Ravi Goyal has filed this frivolous complaint just to harass the present petitioners where as present petitioners have taken the action which was discharging of their official duties therefore, such acts are required to be protected so that administrative and quasi judicial function can be performed by the officer concerned without fear of constraint. Present petitioners are Govt. Officer and have discharged their public duty as assigned upon them by the State Government. They do not bear any criminal history and there is no possibility of their absconsion from the place where they are discharging their duties. Being a presiding Officer, they were ordered to remove encroachment over the land bearing Survey No.579 and 580 of village Shankarpur, Gwalior, which are part of statutory residential town development scheme of GDA. In such circumstances, he prays for quashment of the aforesaid impugned order and other consequential proceedings. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

5 MCRC-37983-2023 Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on record.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 and other consequential proceedings in SST No.70/2018 registered under Sections 440, 395, 120-B of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act pending before learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior against the petitioners is hereby set aside and also Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is not required by Magistrate to take any cognizance in this case.

The application is allowed and disposed of."

Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 as well as the petitioner No.2 in person submitted that the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 has been obtained by respondent No.1 by placing incorrect and misleading facts before this Court, resulting in a grave error apparent on the face of the record and while deciding M.Cr.C. No. 34575 of 2019, the Coordinate Bench proceeded on the assumption that Survey Nos. 579 and 580 of Village Shankarpur were the subject matter of the private complaint, whereas in fact, the complaint filed before the learned Sessions Court clearly pertains to Survey Nos. 569, 570, 571 and 572 of Village Shankarpur. These survey numbers do not belong to Ravi Goyal and were never part of the proceedings initiated by the Gwalior Development Authority. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

6 MCRC-37983-2023 It was further submitted that the proceedings relied upon by the respondent No.1 before the Coordinate Bench were exclusively initiated by the Gwalior Development Authority against one Mr. Ravi Goyal in respect of Survey Nos. 579 and 580 only. The present petitioners have no concern, connection, or interest whatsoever with the said proceedings, and therefore the finding recorded in the impugned order regarding alleged collusion between the present petitioners and Ravi Goyal is wholly misconceived, erroneous, and contrary to the record.

It was further submitted that the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 was passed without calling for or perusing the original record of SST No.70 of 2018, and as such, the actual allegations made in the private complaint, the correct survey numbers, and the factual matrix of the case were not considered by the Coordinate Bench. The order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Court, which was under challenge in M.Cr.C. No. 34575/2019, itself refers to Survey Nos. 579 and 580, whereas the complaint on record pertains to different survey numbers, thereby demonstrating a glaring factual inconsistency which has resulted in serious prejudice to the present petitioners.

It was further submitted that the private complaint in SST No. 70/2018 was filed against eight accused persons. Out of these, only five accused persons approached this Court by filing M.Cr.C. No. 34575 of 2019, while

the remaining accused persons filed M.Cr.C. No. 22721/2019. However, by virtue of the impugned order dated 10.07.2023, even those accused persons who were not before this Court have been granted relief, which is NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

7 MCRC-37983-2023 impermissible in law and contrary to settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It was further submitted that the impugned order has, therefore, resulted in miscarriage of justice, as it has been passed on incorrect and misleading facts, without examination of the original trial court record, and by extending relief to persons who were not parties before this Court. This Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is fully competent to recall an order which has been obtained by suppression or misrepresentation of material facts or where an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.

On the basis of the above submissions, it was prayed that the order dated 10.07.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34575/2019 may be recalled and restored the proceedings of SST No. 70/2018 to their original position for adjudication in accordance with law.

Heard.

In Gurinder Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM‑17720‑2024 in CRM‑M‑7426‑2020), the Punjab & Haryana High Court dealt with an application by the State seeking recall of an earlier High Court order dated 27.07.2023 and has held as under:

12. The statutory prohibition under Section 362 CrPC certainly implies that when the orders are passed on merits and once the Courts have applied their mind and pronounced and signed the judgment, they become functus officio, and when the matters are not decided on merits, but on NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

8 MCRC-37983-2023 technicalities, it would be an altogether different scenario.

Thus, there are two distinct phases of prohibition under Section 362 CrPC, 1973. If the order and judgment have been passed on merits, i.e., after applying judicial mind, then certainly Section 362 CrPC would come into place, and the Court would be functus officio; however, when the orders have been passed on technicalities like dismissal in default or non-prosecution or wrong statement , these are certainly not the orders passed on merits, and the High Courts would be well within their jurisdiction to re-call such orders to prevent abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice.

22. The High Court has statutory powers under S. 482 CrPC, 1973, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. S. 482 does not state that the word "Any Court" would not include the "High Court." Instead, "Any" must include the High Court. S. 362 CrPC, 1973, created an express bar before the Courts not to alter or review any judgment or final order once signed, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The application has been filed under S. 482 CrPC, 1973, for recalling the order and not for altering, reviewing, or modifying it. Recalling an order does not mean reviewing, altering, or modifying an order. It implies that if the applicant's prayer is accepted, the order shall cease to exist and operate.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

9 MCRC-37983-2023

23. Recalling an order or judgment differs entirely from alteration, review, or modification and in peculiar facts and circumstances, and if this Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law, such powers would not be eroded by the restriction imposed by S. 362 CrPC on alteration or review.

24. Given the above, the application is allowed. The order dated 27.07.2023 is recalled. Registry to restore the petition to its original number and list the matter for final hearing on 27 August 2024."

Now, in the backdrop of above legal position, the private complaint is required to be analyzed. Firstly, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract of the private complaint, which reads as under:

                             "1- यह क ,प रवाद      मांक-1 , प रवाद     ं माक-2 क
                    भतीजी बहू है । प रवाद    ं माक-1 मेघा गोयल ारा एक भवन भूिम

5200 वगफुट यािन 483.27 वगमीटर जो क नगर पािलका वाड ं - 1 शंकरपुर परगना व जला वािलयर के भूिम सव ं माक- 569, 570, 571, 572 के प म थत है । जसक चतुसीमा म पूरब म -

                    राजकुमार भमड़ क संप , प           मम-      ीमती मोहनी सेठ क
                    संप , उ र म- लॅ ाट व द       ण म आम रा ता है । उसे पूव भूिम
                      वामी     ीमती वजया व जन प ी धमवीर व जन िनवासी-
                    ग त का ता जया वािलयर से 38 लाख           पये धनरािश भुगतान
                    दे कर दनांक 23/11/2016 को र ज टड व य-प                  -   मांक
 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958




                                          10                         MCRC-37983-2023
                    एम.पी. 142602016ए1631726 के ारा        य कया जाकर मौके पर
                    आिधप य ा        कया। तभी से उभयप     का संयु   आिधप य चला
                    आ रहा है ।"

A perusal of the private complaint unmistakably reveals that the allegations pertain to Survey Nos. 569, 570, 571 and 572 of Village Shankarpur. These survey numbers were never the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the Gwalior Development Authority, which were confined to Survey Nos. 579 and 580. The impugned order dated 10.07.2023 thus proceeded on an incorrect and irrelevant factual premise.

It is evident that the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34575/2019 proceeded on an incorrect and irrelevant factual premise, as the Coordinate Bench assumed that the private complaint in SST No. 70 of 2018 pertained to Survey Nos. 579 and 580 of Village Shankarpur. However, a plain reading of the private complaint unmistakably revealed that the allegations relate to Survey Nos. 569, 570, 571, and 572. These survey numbers were never the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the Gwalior Development Authority.

Further, the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Court, which was under challenge in M.Cr.C. No. 34575/2019, itself refers to Survey Nos. 579 and 580. Thus, there exists a glaring and fundamental inconsistency between the private complaint and the order taking cognizance. This inconsistency goes to the very root of the matter and materially affects the correctness of the impugned order dated 10.07.2023.

It is also apparent that while passing the impugned order, the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

11 MCRC-37983-2023 Coordinate Bench did not call for or examine the original record of SST No. 70 of 2018. As a result, the actual allegations, the correct survey numbers, and the true factual matrix of the case were not placed before or considered by the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held that criminal proceedings must be judged strictly on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, and any order passed on assumptions or extraneous facts cannot be sustained.

This Court is conscious of the limitation imposed by Section 362 Cr.P.C., which bars review or alteration of a judgment or final order. However, the present petition does not seek a review or reconsideration of the merits of the earlier decision. What is sought is recall of an order which was passed on a fundamentally erroneous factual foundation. The distinction between review and recall is well settled.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 396, has categorically held that recall of an order is permissible where the same has been passed under a mistaken belief of facts or where it results in miscarriage of justice. Similarly, in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, it has been held that courts possess inherent powers to recall orders which cause manifest injustice, as justice is a virtue which transcends all procedural technicalities.

It is further well settled that Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not operate as a bar where recall is sought to correct a palpable error or where the order has NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

12 MCRC-37983-2023 been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550, the Supreme Court held that an order obtained by misleading the Court is a nullity and can be recalled at any stage. The same principle has been reiterated in the matter of Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 2 SCC 703.

In the present case, the incorrect assumption regarding the subject survey numbers has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners. Allowing such an order to stand would amount to perpetuating an abuse of the process of law.

The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. exist precisely to meet such situations where the continuation of proceedings or the subsistence of an order would result in miscarriage of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122, has held that where criminal proceedings are founded on a fundamentally flawed factual basis, the High Court must intervene to prevent abuse of process. Similar views have been expressed in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying the principles laid down hereinabove, this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed to the following extent

(i) The order dated 10.07.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34575/2019 is hereby recalled.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2958

13 MCRC-37983-2023

(ii) The matter is restored to its original number for adjudication afresh on correct and relevant facts, after due consideration of the actual allegations contained in the private complaint and the correct survey numbers, in accordance with law.

(iii) List the matter thereafter in the week commencing 09.03.2026.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

pwn* DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265 f02d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed89 153191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.04 10:57:25 +05'30'