Once a final judgment is signed, the court becomes functus officio and lacks power to review or alter the order on merits. Exceptions are narrowly limited to correcting clerical/arithmetical errors or specific procedural failures, such as fraud or a total lack of natural justice, which have not occurred here.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

(I.A. No.6 of 2026-Recall Application)

(Krishna Lal Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another)

1. This is an application moved by the applicant-Krishna Lal Sharma for recall of the order dated 19.3.2026 passed by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire proceedings have been quashed by the judgment and order dated 19.3.2026 without hearing the applicant. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the said case was listed on 19.03.2026 before this Court in Court No.16 at Serial No.3003, but mobile phone of applicant's counsel was out of order, therefore, he could not notice the said case and could not appear and the order was passed on 19.3.2026 without hearing him. It has been further submitted that on 19.03.2026 at 12:10 P.M. Mr. Inam Uddin Ahmed, Advocate i.e. counsel for applicant/o pposite party no.2 called applicant's counsel and asked him about case, on which applicant's counsel told him that he is out of town, therefore, he could not appear in the case. It is further submitted that on the previous date i.e. 12.03.2026 when applicant's counsel was ready for argument, counsel for opposite party no.2 sought adjournment and same was granted by this Court, which shows the bonafide of applicant's counsel that he wanted to argue the case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he is pressing the averments made in the counter affidavit and this Court may consider the submissions as made in the counter affidavit and thereafter, by recalling the order dated 19.3.2026, a fresh judgment may be pronounced. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this Court has failed to consider that no offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the applicant as the said cheques were forcibly taken for security purpose and not for the repayment of legally enforceable debt as there was no transaction between the applicant and opposite party no.2, which is admitted by Rudra Pratap Singh himself in his statement before the court below in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act but the court below overlooked the same and convicted the applicant in totally illegal and arbitrary manner. It has been submitted this Court has failed to consider that both offences are totally different in nature and applications given by applicant in the year 2017, WhatsApp chats, witnesses' statements are on record which show that opposite party no.2-Rudra Pratap Singh has committed the alleged offence but this Court has conducted a mini trial regarding the genuineness and reliability of evidence which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the cases of Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2050; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 2 SCC 703; Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 14 SCC 813; Jaspreet Singh Garewal v. State of U.P. , 2019 SCC OnLine All 3579; Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1783; T.C. Mathai v. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, (1999) 3 SCC 614; Samantha Christina Delfina Willis v. State of Karnataka , WRIT Petition No.24602 of 2021 (GM-RES), decided on 01.06.2022; Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya), 2025 SCC OnL