2026:CGHC:2757 NAFR KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEWANGAN CRMP No. 572 of 2020 Lekhram @ Golu S/o Ramji Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Kastkar, R/o- Village Banranka, Police Station- Than, Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In Crr No. 542/2019), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1 In Crr No. 542/2019), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

2 - Santosh Patel S/o Khelan Singh Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o- Banranka, Police Station- Than, Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant In Crr No. 542/2019), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner :Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 :Mr. S.A.H. Rizvi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

16/01/2026

1. Heard Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as Mr. S.A.H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. That the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred seeking recall/modification of the judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed in CRR No. 542/2019, as the said judgment has been rendered on the basis of incorrect and misleading submissions made by Respondent No. 2, whereby the Court was led to exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal, which is ex facie impermissible in law. In view of the settled position that only an appeal lies against an order of acquittal, the impugned judgment amounts to an abuse of the process of court and calls for interference under the inherent powers of this Court. Hence, the present petition.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the present respondent No. 2 (who was the applicant in CRR No. 542/2019) had filed a criminal revision bearing CRR No. 542/2019 against the order passed by the learned Sessions Appellate Court, Bemetara in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2018, whereby the conviction of the present petitioner (respondent in CRR No. 542/2019) was converted from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court was remanded the said revision and directed a re-trial, however, it is respectfully submitted that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court was deliberately misled, which amounts to abuse of the process of law, as the revision was allowed on the basis of pre-amendment legal position and solely on the submissions made by the present respondent No. 2, without considering the submissions of the present petitioner. Further, by allowing the said revision, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court committed a jurisdictional error, as the exercise of revisional jurisdiction was impermissible in law inasmuch as no revision is maintainable against an order arising out of acquittal, for which the proper remedy lies by way of an appeal. It is pertinent to note that the present petitioner had specifically challenged the maintainability of the aforesaid revision in view of Section 372 of the CrPC and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Dr. Pawan Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRR No. 1105/2018, wherein it has been categorically held that no revision is maintainable against an order of acquittal and the same can only be assailed by way of an appeal. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, CRA No. 1852/2019, has further held that High Courts have the power to recall and/or modify their orders and that the bar contained under Section 362 of the CrPC does not apply. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned co