A court can only recall a judgment in rare cases where it was obtained by fraud or lacks jurisdiction, reaffirming the principle of natural justice.

…Petitioners Vrersus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents CrMMO No.964 of 2024 Anjum Ara & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the applicant/ : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

respondent No.5 Virender Singh, Judge This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-titled applications, which have been filed by respondent No.5, in the decided CrMMOs No.964 and 999 of 2024.

2. The above-titled petitions, which had been filed, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNSS ’), for quashing of FIR No.124 of 2024, dated 21.09.2024, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR, in qufestion’), registered with Police Station Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 3(1)(p) of tthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC&ST Act’), as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, if any, were allowed, by this Court, vide common judgment dated 10.01.2025, passed in the above-titled CrMMOs.

3. By way of the applications (CrMP No.2132 of 2025 in CrMMO No.999 of 2024 and CrMP No.2130 of 2025 in CrMMO No.964 of 2024), indulgence of this Court has been sought to recall the judgment dated 10.01.2025, passed by this Court, mainly, on the ground that the said cases have been decided without getting the reply of respondents No.4 and 5 and the stand, taken by respondents-State, has been accepted as gospel truth, without examining the veracity of the truth into the allegations, levelled by the applicant, as well as, his wife, by this Court.

4. Recalling has also been sought on the ground that the accused persons, in the above noted cases, were senior police officers and the matter wafs also investigated by the police officers of the same Department and in such circumstances, according to thte applicant, before accepting the petitions seeking quashment, entire record of the case was required to be scrutinized more minutely and opportunity to support the allegations should have been given to the applicant and the complainant.

5. Another ground, upon which, the recalling has been sought, is that the order has been obtained by the non-applicants by suppressing the material facts, misleading the Court and further by portraying respondents No.4 and 5 in bad light by the Department/official respondents.

6. Recalling of the order has also been sought on the ground that the applicant is a whistle blower in the Department and by highlighting the antecedents of the applicant, FIR in question has been questioned.

7. The decision of this Court dated 10.01.2025 has also been sought to be recalled on the ground that the official respondents have not bothered to place on record the complaints, which were moved by the applicant/ respondent No.5, as, those complaints wfere required to be enquired/investigated.

8. It is the case otf the applicant that while, deciding the above-titled petitions, this Court could not consider the fact that it has come in para 18 of the decision that the FIR in question was being investigated by the IO of Police Station Sadar, which is factually incorrect and as a matter of fact, initially, the investigation was being conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shimla and then, by CID, but, no where, it has been explained that why the investigation was transferred to CID by deputing Sh. Vikram Chauhan, vide transfer order dated 01.10.2024 and just after the final argument in the matter, said Vikram Chauhan has been further transferred back from CID vide Notification dated 24.12.2024. The applicant has pla