IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has no power to recall or modify its order under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, except in specific circumstances such as when the judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for recalling of order dated 03.04.2019, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.135 of 2019, in terms whereof, this court had allowed the petition filed for quashing of FIR 118 of 2018, dated 15.12.2018, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., under Section 498­A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the non­ applicants on the ground that the dispute which lead to the registration of the FIR stands amicably resolved between the accused and the complainant. The applicant submits that the conditions of the Settlement Deed dated 12.01.2019, in lieu whereof, she had agreed for the quashing of the FIR, stand violated by the non­ applicants/petitioners and therefore, the application be allowed and the order passed by this Court quashing the FIR dated 03.04.2019 be recalled.

2. The application is opposed by the non­applicants/ petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that it is not the non­applicants but the applicant who flouted the terms of the agreement.

3. Be that as it may, this Court is not dwelling on this issue as to who has violated the terms of settlement intra the parties as first of all this Court has to deal with the legal objection raised by the non­applicants that this Court is not vested with any power to recall order dated 03.04.2019 passed in Cr.MMO No.135 of 2019, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Learned counsel for the non­applicants has submitted that after the decision of the main petition, this Court has become functuous officio and in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not vested with any power to either review or recall its order except in terms of Section 367 thereof, which Section is not attracted in the facts of this case.

5. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Man Singh, (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 161, and Atul Shukla vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 299.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant besides placing reliance upon the judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 770 and argued that this Court can recall its order in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of maintainability of the application.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Man Singh (supra) has held that there is no power of review granted to the Courts under the Criminal Procedure Code and as soon as the High Court disposes of the original Revision Petition, it becomes functuous officio and as such it could not have entertained the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for altering the sentence.

9. By placing reliance upon in its earlier adjudication in State of Karela vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 752 and State Represented by DSP, SB CID, Chennai vs. K.V. Rajendran and Others, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 673, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that neither the High Court has jurisdiction to review its order nor the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used by the High Court to re­open or alter an order, disposing of a petition. By placing reliance upon its judgment in Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, 2001 (1) Supreme Court Cases 169, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that no Court after signed its judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. By further referring to its earlier judgment in Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr. (1981) Supreme Court Cases 500, it held that recall of jud