Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Recall of Judgement upon Withdrawal of Complaint - Main points and insights
Courts have recognized that orders permitting withdrawal of complaints or suits can be recalled, especially when the withdrawal was made due to mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud. The absence of specific provisions in the CPC for recall is often supplemented by invoking Section 151 CPC, which grants inherent powers to the court to do justice ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"], ["Mohammad Ishaq Dar v. Usman Syed Shah - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Several judgments emphasize that if a complaint or suit is withdrawn through mistake or fraud, the order can be set aside or recalled to prevent miscarriage of justice. For example, courts have allowed recall when withdrawal was made under mistaken belief or due to undue influence, as seen in cases relying on the principles laid down in Jet Ply Wood Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhukar Nowlakha ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"].
The Supreme Court has clarified that courts generally lack jurisdiction to recall or review their own orders of dismissal or withdrawal under specific procedural rules, such as under Section 362 Cr.P.C. or Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, unless exceptional circumstances like mistake or fraud are established ["Gajanan Parshuram Chopade VS Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha - Bombay"], ["MAHENDRABHAI BABUBHAI TRIVEDI vs NITABEN MAHENDRABHAI DESAI - Gujarat"].
In cases where withdrawal was made ex parte or without proper service, courts have permitted recall or restoration of the complaint or suit, considering the principles of natural justice and the inherent jurisdiction of the court ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"], ["Mohammad Ishaq Dar v. Usman Syed Shah - Jammu and Kashmir"].
The general consensus is that courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall orders of withdrawal when justified by mistake, fraud, or other equitable considerations, provided the application is made within a reasonable time and before finality of proceedings ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"], ["SRI KARIBASANNA vs SRI VASANTHA - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The main insight from the provided sources is that while procedural rules do not explicitly provide for recalling withdrawal orders, courts have consistently relied on their inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to do so in cases of mistake, fraud, or misrepresentation. The courts prioritize substantive justice over strict procedural adherence, especially when withdrawal was not made knowingly or was induced by fraudulent means.
The courts have distinguished between mere withdrawal of suits or complaints and situations where such withdrawal is vitiated by illegal means, allowing for recall to prevent injustice. However, the jurisdiction to recall is limited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily; it requires compelling grounds such as mistake, fraud, or inadvertence.
Overall, the prevailing view is that courts have the power to recall or set aside orders of withdrawal or dismissal if justified, primarily under their inherent powers, ensuring that justice is not defeated due to procedural lapses or fraudulent conduct ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"], ["Mahadev Singh VS Prakash Narain - Allahabad"], ["Mohammad Ishaq Dar v. Usman Syed Shah - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["MAHENDRABHAI BABUBHAI TRIVEDI vs NITABEN MAHENDRABHAI DESAI - Gujarat"].
References:- ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"]- ["Mahadev Singh VS Prakash Narain - Allahabad"]- ["Gajanan Parshuram Chopade VS Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha - Bombay"]- ["MAHENDRABHAI BABUBHAI TRIVEDI vs NITABEN MAHENDRABHAI DESAI - Gujarat"]- ["SRI KARIBASANNA vs SRI VASANTHA - Karnataka"]
In the realm of Indian criminal law, complainants and accused parties often grapple with procedural hurdles after filing or withdrawing complaints. A common query arises: Can a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) recall a judgment or order passed upon the withdrawal of a complaint? This question touches on critical provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), particularly Sections 204 and 482. Understanding this can prevent futile legal efforts and guide parties toward appropriate remedies.
This article explores the legal landscape, drawing from established precedents and related cases. Note: This is general information based on judicial interpretations and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
When a complaint is withdrawn before a JMFC, the court may pass an order, such as dismissal or acquittal. Parties sometimes seek to recall such judgments, especially if circumstances change or new facts emerge. However, Indian jurisprudence strictly limits a Magistrate's powers in this regard.
The issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.—an interlocutory order summoning the accused—is typically final and not subject to recall by the same Magistrate. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371 This principle extends to judgments or orders passed upon withdrawal, as they initiate or conclude proceedings without inherent review mechanisms.
Magistrates do not possess inherent or statutory power to recall or review orders under Section 204 Cr.P.C. once issued, particularly interlocutory processes. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371 The Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad (AIR 2006 SC 1260) held: It is impermissible for the Magistrate to reconsider his decision to issue process in the absence of any specific provision to recall such order. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
This applies analogously to judgments on withdrawn complaints. Once passed, such orders are final unless challenged via appeal, revision, or higher court intervention. The Magistrate cannot suo motu re-examine or recall them. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
In K.M. Mathew (AIR 1979 SC 1860), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that process under Section 204 is interlocutory and non-reviewable by the issuing Magistrate. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
For context, civil suits under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC allow withdrawal, but recall of dismissal orders may invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC in exceptional cases, such as non-prosecution amid settlement talks. Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. VS Shree Ganesh Roadlines - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 230 However, criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. are more rigid, lacking similar provisions for Magistrate-level recall.
While Magistrates are barred, the High Court holds wide inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash illegal, fraudulent, or jurisdictionally defective orders. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371 It may intervene suo motu if an order is wholly without jurisdiction. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
In Yusopalli Mulla v. The King (AIR 1949 PC 264), orders without jurisdiction are nullities, but recall remains a High Court function, not the Magistrate's. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
In Negotiable Instruments Act cases under Section 138, courts have quashed JMFC process orders under Section 482 if issued arbitrarily or without prima facie case. For instance, where evidence was allowed post-process without prejudice to the accused, petitions were dismissed, upholding trial court discretion—but quashing remains viable for flaws. Ritesh Das, S/o Sri Sanjoy K Das VS State of Assam, Rep. By The PP - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 1131
Liberty to approach JMFC for recall of warrants was granted in bail matters, but only after High Court withdrawal, emphasizing higher oversight. SMT. SUMAN W/O SUHAS IJARE, Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Successive complaints barred under Section 300 Cr.P.C. have been quashed under Section 482, preventing abuse where prior JMFC dismissals were concealed. Jayantiben Keshav Furgo VS State Of Gujarat - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 773
These illustrate Section 482's role in correcting Magistrate errors without direct recall powers.
High Court Suo Motu Action: Possible for wholly jurisdictionless or fraudulent orders. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
No Magistrate Suo Motu Review: Invalid without statutory backing. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
Statutory Appeals/Revisions: Under Sections 397 or 378 Cr.P.C. for acquittals, but not routine recalls. Sanwariya vs Narayan - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1265
Limitations persist even post-withdrawal; e.g., in defection complaints, withdrawal doesn't absolve inquiry duties, but orders stand unless quashed. Apurba Sarkar VS State of West Bengal - 2018 Supreme(Cal) 499
In drug offense cases, complaints and summons were quashed under Section 482 for lacking prima facie basis, reinforcing no Magistrate review. AFD Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 2116
File Section 482 Petition: Approach the High Court to quash the order if illegal, fraudulent, or without jurisdiction. Support with evidence of errors. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371
Avoid Magistrate Applications: Requests for recall are unsustainable and may be dismissed.
Document Fraud/Jurisdictional Issues: Plead specifics for High Court relief.
Timeliness: Act promptly, mindful of limitation periods under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Maziezokho Nisa Son of Kosievito Nisa VS T. R. Zeliang The Chief Minister of Nagaland Cm’s Residence cum Office Kohima, Nagaland - 2016 Supreme(Gau) 556
Key takeaways:- Magistrates cannot recall their orders on withdrawn complaints.- High Court under Section 482 is the primary remedy.- Seek professional advice to assess quashing prospects.
The recall of a JMFC judgment upon complaint withdrawal is generally impermissible by the Magistrate under Cr.P.C., absent specific provisions. Parties must pursue High Court intervention under Section 482 for justice. Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371 This framework prevents abuse while ensuring procedural finality.
By understanding these boundaries, litigants can navigate criminal proceedings effectively. Stay informed, but always consult legal experts for tailored guidance.
#CrPC #JMFCRecall #LegalIndia
Reliance is placed upon the judgement passed in case being C.R.P 97/2014, titled Smt. Shakuntala Gupta v. Shri Manmohan Gupta and Order dated 17.12.2020 passed in case being EX.P. 69/2017, titled BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. Shri Lalit Modi. ... While dismissing the recall application, the LSJ distinguished the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, namely Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Company,, 2008 (13) SCC 658 and....
That a part form this, there are several Judgments and Orders passed by the Honble Apex Court, in respect of the same issue in question that if any Order is obtained by making fraud, Collusion and misrepresentation upon the Court Concerned that will be nullity and will not be biding upon the parties ... Since, as stated in the Recall Application No.15 of 2022, complaint has been made to the Bar Council, this Court has restrained itself from taking further steps. However, it is expected that the Bar Coun....
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Criminal Court had jurisdiction to recall an order of dismissal of the complaint. It held that there was no such jurisdiction. That was the ratio of that judgement. ... The appellants before the Supreme Court were accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent before JMFC.. ... The JMFC issued summons requiring the accused to remain present before it on the day on which neither the complainant nor the accused were present and, th....
O. 23, R. 1 provides withdrawal of a suit with or without liberty to file a fresh suit. There is no provision for getting an order passed on withdrawal application set aside or praying for withdrawal of an application for withdrawal of the suit. ... The suit was at the initial stage when the application for withdrawal was filed. The learned court, upon examining PW1/plaintiff dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. ... Gangapada Mahato, (1977) 81 Cal WN 950, it has be....
AIR 2006 SC 1260 ), which had been relied upon by the trial court, had held that withdrawal of the suit by plaintiffs on the basis of mistake or misrepresentation / subterfuge by the defendants and later after withdrawal of the said suit, the defendants resiling from their ... The trial court, after considering the matter and hearing the parties through their counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in a case titled ' Jet Ply Wood Private Ltd. and Another v. Madhukar Nowlakha and Other....
Appellant/complainant has preferred this application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgement of acquittal dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Court of JMFC, Sailana, District Ratlam (M.P.) in Case No.SCNIA/10/2021, whereby learned Magistrate has acquitted the ... At the time of passing of the impugned judgement, learned Trial Court has given the findings, which reads as under:- “1. The complainant has not mentioned the date of presenting the cheque neither in the written #HL_ST....
12th August 2016 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. ... application of the writ petition was based upon the pleadings which were raised from the date of their regularisation on the said post depending upon ... MCC/7562/2021 ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order dated 12th span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT
Upon perusal of the complaint petition and the initial deposition of the complainant, the learned JMFC had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and issued process to the accused petition. ... In addition to his submission, he also relies upon the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Atul Shukla vs. ... Thereafter, the learned JMFC had furnished the copies of the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and relied ....
JMFC, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.4927 of 2020 was confirmed and the applicant was convicted for an offence punishable under a href="./.. ... The applicant has filed the present application, inter-alia, requesting this Court to recall the Order dated 30.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.1447 of 2024 and also sought to restore the Criminal Revision Application No.1447 of 2024 to its original number and list the same for final ... It is required to be noted that on 30.10.2024 when the order in question was p....
of the above petition with liberty to move the JMFC, Hubli for recall of the warrant issued in C.C.No.7/2019. ... Reserving such liberty, the above petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to the JMFC, Hubli to consider THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking for withdrawal ... POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE WARRANT ISSUED IN : 2....
Filing of earlier complaint by his wife before the learned JMFC, dismissal of the complaint and order passed by the Sessions Court were suppressed in the impugned complaint. Exception 4, 8 and 9 read with explanation 4 of Section 499 of I.P.C., no offence of defamation has taken place as alleged in the complaint. The respondent No.2 by changing the jurisdiction of the court filed separate complaint against the present petitioners who have approached before this Court in two different petitions on same set of facts. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner file....
14. Section 28A of the Act deals with the penalty for nondisclosure of the name of the manufacture and provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 18A shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees or with both. In other words looking to the scheme of the Act, the learned JMFC had to act appropriately while dealing with the complaint lodged by the respondent. Besides, in terms of Section 18B of the Act, the complainant was required to issue a notice to the petiti....
Mr. Bhattacharya’s client cannot be construed to be a person aggrieved by such order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Section 21B of the Act of 1993 does not allow his client to prefer an appeal from an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer, upon withdrawal of such complaint had passed an order. Mr. Kar has submitted that, the Order dated June 21, 2016 has since become in fructuous as Mr. Guru Prasad Mukherjee has since withdrawn the complaint made to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
The said notice was replied by the accused on 14.1.2005. The learned JMFC, after recording the evidence and after hearing the respective parties, by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused and, therefore, the aggrieved complainant has approached this Court. Thereafter, the complainant preferred a complaint in the Court of JMFC, Bicholim on 31.1.2005.
In the other Crl. Revn. Ptn. No. 9(K) of 2016, the Court after hearing the parties by an another Judgment and Order dated 25-04-2016 set aside and quashed the order dated 07-12-2015 passed by learned JMFC, Kohima in Complaint Case No. 04/2015, as the Magistrate did not consider the issue of limitation before issuing process against the accused/respondent and since, a similar matter being Complaint Case No. 01/2016 is pending before the JMFC, Peren; to avoid conflicting findings by two separate Courts, by the said Judgment and Order dated 25-04-2016 this Court transferred the said C....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
