Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sai Resources Private Ltd., represented through its Director namely Tarun Kanti Ghosh, s/o. Tapan Kumar Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The record is placed before the bench as an objection has been raised by the stamp reporter regarding the maintainability of this criminal miscellaneous petition.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. or in alternative Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the company M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. with the prayer to recall the judgment and order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1517 of 2025 between Aspire Techno Engineers -Petitioner vs. The State of Jharkhand and the informant-cum-the petitioner who filed protest-cum-complaint case namely Tarun Kanti Ghosh in which the protest-cum-complaint case was numbered as Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 2203 of 2021.
4. In Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025, this Court issued notice to the informant-complainant of the said Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 2203 of 2021 who was the opposite party no.2 of the said Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025. Though notice was validly served upon the said opposite party no.2-Tarun Kanti Ghosh but no one turned up on behalf of the said opposite party no.2 in-spite of
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to recall a judgment once signed without encountering exceptional circumstances, emphasizing strict adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Petitions dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a bona fide reason for absence, circumventing the prohibition of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
A court cannot review its own judgment once signed, except to correct clerical errors, and inherent powers to recall judgments are limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
The High Court lacks the power to review or recall its orders after they have been signed, as it becomes functus officio and such actions are barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
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 a....
(1) Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Section 362 of Cr.P.C. explicitly prohibits court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or revie....
Litigants should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel; allegations of professional misconduct must be addressed to the Bar Council.
The judgment cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, as per the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
