IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:-01.04.2026 Pronounced on:-06.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 07.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment PRITPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER …Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Mr. B.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing/setting-aside of the impugned order dated 05.11.2016 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the trial Court recalled its own acquittal order dated 30.05.2016 and summoned the petitioners again to face trial, along-with all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.33 dated 06.06.2015 under Section 420 IPC was registered at Police Station City 2, Mansa. After investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was initially presented against petitioner No.1 on 09.08.2015 and thereafter, a supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against petitioner No.2. During investigation, certain other persons namely Rajkaran Singh, Manjit Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Jagdeep Singh were also joined and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. During the pendency of trial, the petitioners entered into a compromise with the complainant Baldev Singh, who appeared before the trial Court and suffered a statement to the effect that the matter had been amicably settled and he had no objection if the petitioners were acquitted. Consequently, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 30.05.2016, considering the offence to be compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., acquitted the petitioners.

3. Thereafter, co-accused Kiranjit Singh was granted bail and joined the investigation, and a supplementary challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 01.08.2016 was presented against him. During the proceedings against the said co-accused, the learned APP for the State raised arguments before the trial Court, upon which the trial Court, without following due process of law, recalled its earlier final order dated 30.05.2016 whereby the petitioners had been acquitted. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 05.11.2016, the learned trial Court summoned the petitioners again to face trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the above- said action of the learned trial Court is patently illegal, without jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. It is contended that once the learned trial Court had passed a final order of acquittal dated 30.05.2016 and the same had been signed, the Court became functus officio and had no power to review, recall or alter its own judgment. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 05.11.2016, whereby the learned trial Court has recalled its earlier judgment and summoned the petitioners again to face trial, is in clear violation of the statutory bar contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which specifically provides that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

5. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh Mann versus Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 650, to contend that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure to review a judgment, and even the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to do so. It has been held that once a matter is finally disposed of, the Court becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain any fresh prayer for the same relief unless the earlier order is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. On the strength of the afore-said legal position, it is ar