A Criminal Court can rectify its own orders in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice, despite generally lacking review power, when errors arise beyond the party's control.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 vide order dated 18.10.2024 by the learned Trial Court, who stand accused in case FIR No. 120 dated 28.09.2024 under Sections 420 , 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station E-Division, District Amritsar.

2. The petitioner (complainant) alleges that the private respondents entered into an agreement to sell a commercial property, accepted and an earnest money deposit of approximately Rs.52 lakhs, and thereafter reneged on their commitment, thereby committing fraud and cheating upon the petitioner.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 07.10.2024, the private respondents were granted the concession of interim bail and asked to join investigation within 7 days and cooperate with the investigating agency. The learned Trial Court concerned initially dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the private respondents on 16.10.2024 vide Annexure P-3, due to their alleged failure to comply with the direction to join the investigation. However, the very next day, the private respondents moved a fresh application, upon which the learned Trial Court recalled its previous order and granted them anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that such an exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court is legally impermissible and, therefore, the bail granted to the private respondents ought to be cancelled.

4. Upon issuance of notice, the learned counsel for the State has filed a status report filed by way of an affidavit of Jaspal Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central, Amritsar City, affirming the correctness of the order of the Trial Court granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the private respondents has also opposed the present petition, asserting that the impugned order granting them bail is justified in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has argued that the Trial Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by recalling its order dismissing the anticipatory bail application and subsequently granting relief to the private respondents. It is submitted that a Criminal Court does not possess the inherent power to review or recall its own orders except in cases involving typographical or mathematical errors. Since the impugned order does not fall within these recognized exceptions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is unsustainable and ought to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the order dismissing their anticipatory bail of on 16.10.2024 was passed in their absence due to a misrepresentation made by a police official before the Trial Court. It is explained that the matter was initially listed for hearing on 15.10.2024. However, owing to Gram Panchayat elections, the said date was subsequently declared a holiday, and the case was automatically adjourned to 16.10.2024. On that day, in the absence of the regular investigating officer, another police official appeared before the Trial Court and erroneously stated that the private respondents had not complied with the direction to join the investigation. However, the factual position was to the contrary; the private respondents had duly appeared before the investigating agency and fu