D.P.Bhagat vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7268 P&H

CRM-M-28012-2019                                                          -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH.

                                          CRM-M-28012-2019
                                          Reserved on: 13.07.2022
                                          Pronounced on: 20.07.2022

D.P.BHAGAT                                                     .....Petitioner

                                  Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                  .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Argued by: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

            Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, AAG, Punjab.
            For respondents No. 1 and 3.

       Respondent No. 2 - Suresh Saggar, in person.
                        ****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The respondent No. 2 herein, one Suresh Saggar, had

instituted an application cast under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the

learned empowered court concerned. Through the above application, he

had asked for the registration of an FIR against the accused named

therein, qua offences constituted under Sections 120-B, 201, 406, 409,

420, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC, read with Sections 7, 11, 12, 13(i), (c),

(d), (ii), (iii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

However, thereons, the learned empowered court concerned, made a

dis-affirmative order, as, embodied in Annexure P-2.

2. The above dis-affirmative order, as made on the

application of respondent No. 2, became founded, upon, the

submissions of the applicant, and, of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order, reveals that it

also became founded, upon, this court quashing an earlier preferred

1 of 4

petitioners' application, cast under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. However, subsequently the respondent No. 2, moved an

application seeking recall of the order embodied in Annexure P-2. The

reason for respondent No. 2 claiming relief, for recall of the order made

on 18.09.2018, became groved in the factum, that it became untenably

anviled, upon, misrepresentation of the law, and, facts by rather the

Additional Public Prosecutor, besides, became grooved, in it emanating

from misconception of law, and, facts, and, thereupon, it leading to

gross mis-exercise of jurisdiction(s).

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, made an

affirmative order on the respondent's No. 2 application, asking for the

recalling of the earlier thereto order, as, made on 18.09.2018, and, also

ordered for arguments being heard, upon, the respondent's No. 2

application, cast under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., read with Section 190

Cr.P.C.

5. The petitioner herein becomes aggrieved from the above

order, and, have made a challenge thereto. The contest which has

erupted amongst the petitioner, and, co-respondent No. 2, is

appertaining, to the legal permissibility of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Amritsar to, through an order made on 08.01.2019,

hence recall, and, or, review the earlier thereto order, as, made by him

on 18.09.2018.

6. The controversy (supra), which has erupted amongst the

above litigants, would become rested, on this court making an

interpretation of Section 362 Cr.P.C., provisions whereof, become

extracted hereinafter. On there incisive reading, it becomes unfolded,

2 of 4

qua theirs completely forbiding the Court concerned, to recall, or,

review a sealed, and, signatured order, except for the makings

corrections hence of thereins carried arithmetical errors, or,

typographical mistakes.

"362. Court not to after 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."

7. Imminently, the order strived to be reviewed by co-

respondent No. 2, and, which became ultimately reviewed by the

learned Court concerned, was not asked to be reviewed, or, recalled on

the ground, of its apparently carrying arithmetical errors, or,

typographical mistakes, rather it became strived to be reviewed, on the

ground that, it was passed on mis-representation of law, and, facts, as

made to the court, by the Additional Public Prosecutor concerned.

8. The respondent No. 2, has upon the above ground, of the

order initially made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar

being ridden with the above vices, rather obviously, has strived to

ensure qua its becoming validated by this court. He supports his above

argument, through placing reliance, upon, a verdict of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, reported in 2022(2) Criminal Court Cases 748 (S.C.)

titled 'Ganesh Patel Vs. Umakant Rajoria', decided on 07.03.2022,

whereins, the Hon'ble Apex Court had condoned, and, validated the

recalling, and, reviews of orders, as, made by the High Court, through

its exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even rather

irrespective of the embargo cast in Section 362 Cr.P.C. This Court is

definitely bound to revere the above mandate. However, the facts

3 of 4

therein, are completely distinct to the facts in hand, and, obviously

make the above verdict (supra), to become not applicable to the facts at

hand. The stark distinctive fact, become comprised in the factum, that

the verdict (supra), applies to the jurisdiction(s) exercised by High

Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and, obviously does not apply to

review jurisdictions exercised or exercisable by criminal courts of

competent jurisdiction, other than the High Court, who obviously do

not enjoy any inherent power, as the High Court enjoys, nor can they

outside the mandate carried in Section 362 Cr.P.C., review, or, recall

orders, as became, rather untenably reviewed in the instant case, and or,

became reviewed, rather completely outside the contours of the

mandate carried in Section 362 Cr.P.C.

9. In consequence, the impugned order falls outside the

jurisdictional competence of the learned court concerned, and,

obviously it is required to be quashed. The present petition is allowed

and, the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) is

accordingly set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the co-respondent

No. 2, to through availing the appropriate recourses constitute a

challenge thereto.

                                                (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
20.07.2022                                             JUDGE
kavneet singh


                Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
                Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                    4 of 4