The court can exercise its inherent power to recall an order if it was obtained by abuse of the process of court and had become a nullity in the eye of the law.

Headnote:
Recall - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376/2013 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to alter or review an order. It also referenced the directions given by the Supreme Court in the Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. case regarding the automatic lapse of stay orders after six months unless extended by a speaking order.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition to recall an order quashing the final report pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur, after realizing that the accused had already been acquitted by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order in the Crl. M.C. was obtained by abuse of the process of court, as the accused had already been acquitted after trial, and there was no scope for quashing the final report.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had the inherent power to recall the order in the Crl. M.C. after it had been signed, and whether the order had become a nullity in the eye of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent power could be exercised to recall the order if it was obtained by abuse of the process of court, and if the order had become a nullity in the eye of the law.
Final Decision: The order in the Crl. M.C. was recalled, and directions were given to judicial officers to intimate the court which had ordered the stay if a case was proceeded with for non-extension of stay, in order to avoid conflicting decisions.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above Crl. M.C. for recalling the order dated 10.11.2021.

2. The Crl. M.C. was filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 555 of 2014 of Pudunagaram Police Station to quash the final report pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur. As per order dated 10.11.2021, the Crl. M.C. was allowed quashing the final report in C.C No. 1852 of 2014 of JFCM, Chittur, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner/accused was set at liberty.

3. Thereafter, on 15.11.2021, above petition has been filed to recall the order dated 10.11.2021, stating that after pronouncing the order, when the counsel contacted his client, he came to know that the petitioner/accused was already acquitted by JFCM, Chittur on 28.09.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner is tendering his apology for the inadvertent mistake committed by him and he is seeking recall of the order as the matter has become infructuous.

4. In order to verify the facts, a report was called for from JFCM, Chittur, and a report was placed before this Court. The report dated 06.12.2021 says that the stay order from the High Court was communicated on 05.09.2016. Subsequently, on 20.07.2019, learned counsel for the accused appearing before the Magistrate Court submitted that the stay was not extended by the High Court, and at present, there was no stay, and a statement also filed before that court, to that effect. So, the Magistrate proceeded with the case, examined the witnesses and finally acquitted the accused on 28.09.2020. The Magistrate has requested to condone her mistake, as she disposed the case, forgetting pendency of Crl. M.C. before the High Court.

5. As per the decision Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376/2013 dated 28.03.2018, the Apex Court had given directions to the effect that, in all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from 28.03.2018 unless extended by a speaking order. It was further directed that the trial courts may, on expiry of the above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending the stay is produced.

6. On going through the proceedings sheet in Crl. M.C. No. 4737 of 2016, it could be seen that the interim order of stay was extended by four months on 17.10.2018 and thereafter, no extension of stay was prayed for, and the stay has not been extended. So, the Magistrate may be justified in proceeding with the trial in C.C No. 1852 of 2014 of JFCM, Chittur. As per judgment dated 28.09.2020, the Magistrate acquitted the accused. That matter was not intimated to this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. M.C. and he argued the case and it was allowed on 10.11.2021. According to him, only after pronouncing the order, he came to know that the accused was already acquitted by the Magistrate, and now he wants to recall the order in Crl. M.C.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition, stating that, once the judgment has been signed by the Judge, the court has become functus officio, and under Section 362 Cr.P.C. 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.

8. It is true that the court becomes functus officio, the moment order for disposing of a case is signed, and such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. Even the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. Section 362 Cr.P.C. expressly bars any such review/alteration of the order finally disposing the case. But, if a judgment has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document