Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for recalling the order dated October 17, 2011 passed by this court in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3483 of 2011.

2. Mrs. Dimple Sharma, present in person on behalf of Nav Ratan Kothari requested to this court that she has asked the advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner to appear before this court, but on account of strike they refused to appear and hence she may be permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner Nav Ratan Kothari.

3. Mr. Bhagwat Gaur, non-petitioner No.2 present in person has drawn the attention of this court towards section 362 Cr.P.C. which provides that 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." Section 362 Cr.P.C. reads as under :

"Section 362. Court not to alter jdugment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for thge 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."

Thus it is clear that 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.

4. Mr. Bhagwat Gaur has further contended that in the order of this court dated October 17, 2011 passed in S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.3483 of 2011 neither there is any clerical nor any erithmetical error, which requires any correction. Mr. Bhagwat Gaur has further contneded that this court has already given liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the court below and it was directed by this court that the order passed by this court on 17.10.2011 will not come in the way of the petitioner in arguing the matter before the revisional court and the reversional court will not take into consideration any findigns given by this court while passsing orders on the pending revision petition. The trial court was further directed to expedite the hearing of the revision petition as early as possible. In these curcumsances it was prayed that the order passed by this court on October, 17, 2011 in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3483 of 2011 does not require any recalling of the order. Thus it was prayed that the application filed by the petitioner is frivolous and deserves to be rejected.

5. I have heard Mrs. Dimple Sharma, present in person on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bhagwat Gaur, non-petitioner No.2 present in person.

6. This court on October 17, 2011 in the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner Nav Ratan Kothari, passed the following order :

“This Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.5 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2011 Nav Ratan Kothari vs. State and anr. whereby he has declined to grant stay of operation of order dated 9.9.2011 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.4 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1042/2011 whereby cognizance for offence under sections 420, 409 read with section 120 B IPC was taken and process was issued against the petitioner for securing his presence through arrest warrant in FIR NO. 160/2010 registered at Police Station Brahmpuri Jaipur.

2. Factial matrix of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed in the court of concerned Magistrate by the complainant Bhagwat Gaur, who is respondent No.2 herein (in short the complainant) against the petitioner Navratan Kothari and three other accused persons alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 471, and 120-B IPC. The said criminal complaint was sent for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate to Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur. In pursuance thereof a regular FIR No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document