An application for recall of judgment is maintainable as a procedural review, but the specific bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. prevents the court from reviewing a judgment passed on merit after hearing all concerned parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application for restoration/recall of judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by this Court in above captioned case. Conclusion of the order dated 24.11.2022, as mentioned in paragraphs no. 23 and 24, are reproduced hereinafter:

“23. In view of above discussion, I come to conclusion that -: (1) In pursuance of F.I.R. referred above, the investigation was conducted and a charge sheet was filed on 03.04.2020 under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 336 I.P.C. against four applicants except applicant No.2 but the learned trial Court has not taken cognizance on it.

(2) The Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh on the basis of an application filed by complainant has directed for further investigation and not reinvestigation, therefore, there was no illegality in the order of further investigation.

(3) After further investigation, on the basis of evidence of doctor and report of CT Scan, supplementary charge sheet was filed on 13.07.2020 against all the applicants for committing offence under Sections 336, 323, 504, 506, 147, 308, 452 I.P.C., therefore, there was no abuse of process in the submission of supplementary charge sheet. (4) The learned trial Court rightly considered both the charge sheets filed under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. as well as supplementary charge sheet filed under Section 173 (8) and after considering the evidence on record, took cognizance and summoned the applicants.

(5) The dispute, if any in regard to contrary statements of doctor cannot be considered to be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings ignoring the medical report of CT Scan of head of injured wherein injury was found and an opinion given by doctor that it was a grievous injury. Therefore, there is no illegality in taking cognizance of offence under Sections 336, 323, 504, 506, 147, 308, 452 I.P.C. by the learned trial Court.

24. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity or abuse of process of law in the investigation and submission of charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and thereafter supplementary charge sheet as well as order of cognizance on both charge sheets and summoning order whereby applicants are summoned.”

2. It has been pointed out that aforesaid judgment was challenged by applicants before Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2672 of 2023 which was dismissed as not pressed reserving the liberty, as prayed for. The order dated 03.03.2023 passed by Supreme Court in its entirety is mentioned hereinafter:

“Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the court could not have taken cognizance and issued summons against the accused on the basis of the supplementary chargesheet. However, we find that the High Court had noted that when the first chargesheet was filed, the investigation was incomplete and was continuing. This is contended to be an erroneous finding of the High Court.

In view of the above, the learned counsel prays for the liberty to withdraw this petition and move the High Court in its review jurisdiction. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed reserving the liberty as prayed for.”

3. Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for applicants, has reiterated the averments made in present application for recall/ restoration.

4. An impression was created that there was a perverse finding, however, when learned Senior Advocate was confronted with above referred conclusion, apprehension, if any, was removed.

5. This Court has made a specific query that since there is bar as provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C., under what circumstances present recall/ restoration application could be considered, for that learned Senior Advocate has no satisfactory reply.

6. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant Raroria, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2050 wherein it was held th