Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to set aside ex-parte orders without following proper procedure in the original case.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. By means of the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought recall of an order dated 24.03.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Crl. Revision No.584 of 2016 whereby the revision filed by the opposite party No.2 was allowed after hearing submissions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate, recording that nobody had put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 (the applicant in the present case). The learned Counsel for the applicant is seeking recall of the order dated 24.03.2022 on the ground that notice of the revision had not been served on the applicant personally and, therefore, the applicant could not appear in that revision and the order was passed ex-parte against him.

3. The learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that for recall of an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a Criminal revision, a separate application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not be maintainable and the applicant ought to have filed a miscellaneous application for recall of the order in the Criminal Revision itself.

4. Replying to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Tribhuvan v. State of U.P. , (1992) L.Cr.R. 165 wherein this Court held that the bar contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C. will not apply against recall of a judgment and this Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall an order passed without hearing a party. The order in the case of Tribhuvan (Supra) was passed on Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 646 of 1984 filed in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1977, which appeal had been decided without hearing a party and not on a separate application filed and registered afresh under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant next relied upon a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Badloo v. State , 1999 SCC OnLine All 644 = (1999) L.Cr.R. 275 wherein this Court held that the power of recall is different from the power of altering or reviewing a judgment and the Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall a judgment passed without hearing a party. This judgment was also given upon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2746 of 1998 filed in Criminal Revision No. 612 of 1982 which had been decided without hearing a party and not in a separate fresh application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

7. The inherent powers inhere in this Court, i.e., these powers exist essentially and permanently. The exercise of the inherent powers is not limited to a separate application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and such power can be exercised by this Court in any proceeding before it, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

8. In exercise of its inherent powers recognized under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court can recall an order passed in any case ex-parte, upon sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance, when the case was decided. However, in exercise of the inherent powers, a Bench of this Court cannot interfere in any ord