Uttarakhand High Court

C482/1241/2016 on 1 May, 2025

                  Office N ot e s,
                re port s, or de rs                                                       2017:UHC:3987
                or pr oce e dings
SL.
       Da t e     or dire ct ions                    COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
N o.
                a nd Re gist ra r's
                   orde r w it h
                   Signa t ure s
                                      MCRC No. 177 of 2018 (Review Application)
                                      in
                                      C-482 Petition No. 1241 of 2016
                                      Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Dr. Kartikeya Hari Gupta and Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, Advocates, for the applicant.

2. Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA and Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holders for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the Review Applicant has submitted that since the present C-482 Application was not decided on merit, therefore, Review/Recall is maintainable and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon Dexaben vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 and Jawaha Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj vs. The State of U.P. though C.B.I. /ACb Lucknow, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine All 8899.

4. Perusal of the judgment Dexaben vs. State of Gujarat (supra) would reveal that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in Review/Recall in Criminal matters could be entertained on four conditions, i.e.:

(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations made in the compliant are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (3) Where there is discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on material which are wholly irrelevant 2017:UHC:3987 or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.

The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings."

5. In the present case, none of these conditions exists.

6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that review in Criminal Case is not maintainable. In view of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, in State Of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. on 7 December, 2011 reported in (2011 14 SCC 770, Hon'ble Apex Court in para 21 of the judgment, has held as under:

"The High Court was not denuded of inherent power to recall a judgment and /or order which was without jurisdiction, or in violation of principles of natural justice, or passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to a party affected by the order or where an order was obtained by abusing the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction. Inherent powers can be exercised to recall such orders".

In view of the above, the Review Application being (MCRC No. 177 of 2018) is dismissed.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 01.05.2025

Kaushal