Hon’ble Vinod Kumar Misra, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2012 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Siddharthnagar in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2011 (RamKamal Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others) under Section 133 Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 4.12.2010 passed by S.D.M. Naugarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. And learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. It transpires from the impugned judgment dated 18.7.2012 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Siddharthnagar that learned Judge has allowed the Criminal Revision No. 18/2011 and has set aside the order dated 4.12. 2010 passed by learned S.D.M. Naugarh in Case No. 55 of 2009 (State v. Ram Akbal Singh and others). On 4.12.2010 learned S.D.M., Naugarh has passed the order to the effect that conditional order dated 6.4.1996 was issued at the report of SHO on the application of Ram Akbal Singh and others. The case was to be decided on merit but on 16.6.2009 the case has been dismissed in default. Against order dated 16.6.2009 Baburam moved an application on the same date mentioning the fact that as he went to call his counsel, some delay took place in the arrival of the counsel in the Court and in the meanwhile, case has been dismissed in default. He prayed that case be restored for deciding it on merits. Learned S.D.M. after hearing both the sides and mentioning this fact that on that date second party Ram Kamal Singh and others was also absent and this case is quite old, it should be decided on merits. So he allowed the application of Babu Ram imposing cost of Rs. 100/- and recalled the order dated 16.6.2009 and fix 16.12.2010 for arguments. This order of learned S.D.M. was assailed by Ram Kamal Singh and Ram Nagina Singh before Special Judge (SC/ST) Siddharthnagar and learned Special Judge (SC/ST) has set asided the order dated 4.12.2010 passed by learned S.D.M. Learned Judge has mentioned in the judgment that learned Magistrate cannot recall its order, as the criminal Court does not have the jurisdiction and power to recall its order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are of quasi civil nature and in support of his submission State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and others, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1642 has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist. In this case law it has been observed by the Apex Court that proceedings under Section 133 and 144 Cr.P.C. are more in the nature of civil proceedings than criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Section 362 Cr.P.C. contemplates 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. In the present matter, the order of learned S.D.M. dismissing the proceedings in default did not amount to judgment or final order, as no adjudication of merits has been made by hearing the both sides.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also submitted that merely because Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been in the Criminal Procedure Code it cannot be presumed that proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are purely proceedings of criminal case just like as the trial of an accused. Cr.P.C. also contains provisions regarding the maintenance under Chapter IX but that does not mean that proceedings of different types of matter given in different Chapters just else like Chapter IX or Chapter X are purely criminal proceedings and the procedure mentioned for a criminal trial will also be observed in these proceedings. In Smt. Kusum Devi v. Ram Chandra Maurya and others, 2004 All CJ 108.

6. This Court held that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dismissed in default would be restored and in this case it has also been held that if there is no specific provision and justice demands, there is inherent