# Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 1133 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/javed-ahmad-javed-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53130
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Fraud on Court -
Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedings
-
Concealment of material facts and nonimpleadment of necessary injured victims
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 482 & 362 - Where order under
Section 482 CrPC is obtained by fraud,
same is liable to be recalled despite bar
under Section 362 - Fraud on the Court
vitiates judicial proceedings - Deliberate
non-impleadment
of
injured
parties
amounts to misconduct and abuse of
process - Application under Section 482
CrPC, based on concealment and fraud,
cannot be sustained and the order passed
therein is liable to be recalled with costs.
(Para - 3,6,8,14,24,25,26)

(B) Words or Phrases - "Actus Curiae
neminem gravabit" - The act of Court shall
prejudice no one and in such a situation,
the Court is under obligation to undo the
wrong done to a party by the act of the
Court - "Fraud vitiates every solemn
proceeding" - No right can be claimed by a
fraudster on the ground of technicalities.
(Para - 15, 23)

(C) Practice & Procedure - Counsel's duty
to assist the Court fairly - non-disclosure
of material facts amounts to serious
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
347
professional
misconduct
-
apology
accepted with warning. (Paras 24(c), 31)

Final order quashing criminal proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC was passed on basis of
compromise - without impleading all injured
persons who had refused to compromise -
application for recall filed by State alleging
fraud on Court. (Para - 2,3,6,7,8)

HELD: - It is a case of committing fraud
with the Court. Instant application liable to
be allowed with cost. Application for recall
of order filed by
the State allowed.
Application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
restored to its original number. Sessions
Trial No. 110 of 2017 restored to its original
number.
Costs
imposed
on
applicants.
(Para -25,26,28)

Directed to list application under S. 482
CrPC before appropriate Court at an early
date as fresh. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 59,059. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The additional demands made
by the first respondent in respect of the
assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 will
operate as roadblocks in implementing the
approved Resolution Plan, and appellants
will not be able to restart the operations of
the CD on a clean slate.

14. We, therefore, hold that the
demands raised by the first respondent
against the CD in respect of assessment
years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are invalid and
cannot be enforced. We set aside the
impugned orders of NCLT and NCLAT
and allow the appeal accordingly."

7. In view of the above law laid down
by the Supreme Court, we are of the view
that the principle is crystal clear that once
Resolution Plan has been approved by the
NCLT, all other creditors are barred from
raising their claims subsequently, as the
same would disrupt the entire resolution
process.
The
Supreme
Court
has
categorically held the same as indicated
above.

8. We accordingly find no reason to
keep
this
matter
pending
and
accordingly the impugned Assessment
Order
dated
04.02.2025
bearing
Reference
No:
ZD090225039501M
passed
under
Section
74(9)
of
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 by the Deputy
Commissioner [Respondent No. 5] as
well as the Impugned Demand Notice
issued in pursuance to the Impugned
Order dated 04.02.2025 passed under
Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
against the Petitioner relating to financial
year 2017-2018, are quashed.

9. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1133 of 2025

Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sajjad Hussain, Eshan Garg, Prachi Arya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Mohd. Saud Khan, Prachi Arya

(A) Criminal Law - Fraud on Court -
Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedings
-
Concealment of material facts and nonimpleadment of necessary injured victims
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 482 & 362 - Where order under
Section 482 CrPC is obtained by fraud,
same is liable to be recalled despite bar
under Section 362 - Fraud on the Court
vitiates judicial proceedings - Deliberate
non-impleadment
of
injured
parties
amounts to misconduct and abuse of
process - Application under Section 482
CrPC, based on concealment and fraud,
cannot be sustained and the order passed
therein is liable to be recalled with costs.
(Para - 3,6,8,14,24,25,26)

(B) Words or Phrases - "Actus Curiae
neminem gravabit" - The act of Court shall
prejudice no one and in such a situation,
the Court is under obligation to undo the
wrong done to a party by the act of the
Court - "Fraud vitiates every solemn
proceeding" - No right can be claimed by a
fraudster on the ground of technicalities.
(Para - 15, 23)

(C) Practice & Procedure - Counsel's duty
to assist the Court fairly - non-disclosure
of material facts amounts to serious
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
347
professional
misconduct
-
apology
accepted with warning. (Paras 24(c), 31)

Final order quashing criminal proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC was passed on basis of
compromise - without impleading all injured
persons who had refused to compromise -
application for recall filed by State alleging
fraud on Court. (Para - 2,3,6,7,8)

HELD: - It is a case of committing fraud
with the Court. Instant application liable to
be allowed with cost. Application for recall
of order filed by
the State allowed.
Application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
restored to its original number. Sessions
Trial No. 110 of 2017 restored to its original
number.
Costs
imposed
on
applicants.
(Para -25,26,28)

Directed to list application under S. 482
CrPC before appropriate Court at an early
date as fresh. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs Pyare Lal & anr., (1981)
1 SCC 500

2. Hotel Balaji & ors. Vs St. of A.P. & ors.,
AIR 1993 SC 1048

3. St. of Punj. Vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
(2011) 14 SCC 770

4. Ganesh Patel Vs Umakant Raroria, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 2050

5. Budhia Swain Vs Gopinath Deb (1999) 4
SCC 396

6. Mukesh Updhyay Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2019:AHC:42284

7. Kusha Duruka Vs St. of Odisha, (2024) 4
SCC 432

8.
Hussain
Vs
Gram
Panchayat
Roon
Panchayat Samiti Mundwa, 2025 SCC OnLine
Raj 271

9. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath &
Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1,
10. Ram Chandra Singh Vs Savitri Devi, (2003)
8 SCC 319 ,

11. Jai Narain Parasrampuria Vs Pushpa Devi
Saraf (2006) 7 SCC 756,

12. Madhukar Sadbha Shivark Madhukar
Sadbha Shivarkar Vs St. of Maha., (2015) 6
SCC 557,

13. Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs Raj Kumar Rajinder
Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 449

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

(Order on I.A. No. 02 of 2025,
Application for Recall of Order)

1. Heard Shri Sajjad Husain, learned
counsel for the applicants and Ms. Ankita
Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party.

2. This is an application filed by the
State for recall of final order passed by this
Court in exercise of its inherent power
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
dated
12.02.2025 whereby this Court quashed the
entire criminal proceedings on the basis of
the compromise entered between the parties
i.e. the applicants namely Javed Ahmad @
Javed S/o Kurban Ali, Sartaj S/o Kurban
Ali, Mo. Zafar @ Jafar S/o Mo. Nafees and
Hameedan @ Hameeda W/o Kurbaan
Ahmad and the opposite party no. 2 namely
Mohammad Naseem @ Naseem S/o
Chutkau.

3. Instant application has been filed
on the ground that the applicants have
played fraud on the Court for the purposes
of getting the final order dated 12.02.2025
whereby this Court quashed the criminal
proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.
86 of 2017, Under Section 323, 504, 506,
452, 308, 324, 325, 304, 147, 148 IPC,
Police Station Dewa, District- Barabanki
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which were pending as Session Trial No.
110 of 2017 (State vs. Kurban and Ors.),
when the order in issue dated 12.02.2025
was passed.

4. To establish the aforesaid, it is
stated that the applicants approached this
Court by means of APPLICATION U/S
482 No. 11901 of 2024 in re: Javed
Ahmad @ Javed And 3 Others Vs. State
Of U.P. Thru Its Principal Sec. Deptt. Of
Home And 3 others and same was disposed
of by this Court vide order dated
03.01.2025 for the purposes of getting the
compromise verified by the trial Court.

5. It is also stated that in compliance
of the order of this Court, the trial Corut
verified the compromise on 27.01.2025.

6. It is also stated that a perusal of the
verification report dated 27.01.2025 would
indicate/show that injured persons namely
Majrub, Mo. Salman, Mufidul, Mahboob,
Shabnam Bano and Naseera (mother of the
deceased) refused to enter into compromise
and this fact was not brought to the notice
of
this
Court
intentionally
or
unintentionally but the fact remains that
this fact was not brought to the notice of
this Court by Shri Sajjad Hussain,
Advocate, learned counsel who drafted the
application Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the
applicants. The verification report indicated
is extracted herein-under:

"मा० उच्च न्र्ार्ालर् खण्र्पीठ
लखनऊ में र्ोजजत प्रािाना पत्र U/S 482 No11901/2024 जावेद आदद V/S सरकार आदद
में पाररत आदेश ददनाांक-3/01/2025 के
अनुपालन में न्र्ार्ालर् के समक्ष उपजथित
होकर प्रिम पक्ष मोहम्मद नसीम को उनके
अधिवतता श्री ववनीत कुमार द्वारा पहचान
पर एवां फोटो को एवां द्ववतीर् पक्ष
अभिर्ुततगण जावेद अहमद उफा जावेद,
सरताज, हमीदन व मो. जफर को उनके
अधिवतता श्री
आददत्र्
कुमार
द्वारा
पहचान पत्र एवां फोटो को सत्र्ावपत ककर्ा।
एवां र्ह िी उल्लेखनीर् है कक मजरुब, मो०
सलमान, मुफीदुल, महबूब, शबनम बानो एवां
नसीरा (मृतक की माां) द्वारा शपि पत्र
दाखखल कर सुलह समझौता के तथ्र् से
इांकार ककर्ा।

तदनुसार प्रिम पक्ष नसीम व
द्ववतीर् पक्ष अभिर्ुततगण जावेद अहमद
उर्फा जावेद, सरताज, हमीदन व मो० जफर
के सुलह समझौता को तथदीक ककर्ा जाता
है।"

7. It is further stated that in the
concerned incident to which the F.I.R dated
11.02.2017 was lodged against Accused
Persons/Applicants
by
the
Informant
namely Salma for assaulting and inflicting
grievous injuries to Taufiq (brother of
Complainant) who succumbed to death due
to the injuries sustained, and to other
injured persons namely Mahboob (Brotherin-law of Complainant), Shanno (Sister of
Complainant),
Mohammad
Salman
(Nephew of Complainant), Mufidul (Sister
in law of Complainant) Shanno (Sister of
Complainant) and Mohammad Naseem
(Husband of Complainant). However, all
these victims were neither impleaded by
Accused Persons/ applicants in Application
under
section
482
Cr.P.C.
bearing
No.11901 of 2024 (Javed Ahmad @ Javed
and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and others)
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
349
nor in present Application under section
482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1133 of 2025.

8. It is also stated that the applicants
deliberately did not implead all the Victims
in the array of parties thereby misleading
the Court, though all the victims were/are
the necessary parties who were injured in
the incident for which proceeding of ST
No. 110 of 2017 (State Government Vs
Kurban & Ors) registered as CNR No.
UPBB010023332017, arising out of Case
Crime No. 86/2017 under section 323, 504,
506, 452, 308, 324, 325, 204, 147 & 148
I.P.C
Police
Station
Dewa
District-
Barabanki, was pending against accused
persons/applicants
before
Additional
District and Sessions Judge Barabanki.

9. It is also stated that in this view of
the matter the order dated 12.02.2025 is
liable to be recalled.

10. Opposing the prayer of the State
to recall the final order dated 12.02.2025,
Shri Sajjad Hussain, Advocate, learned
counsel for the applicants in the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. placed reliance
on Section 362 Cr.P.C. and based upon the
same, he stated that the final order passed
in exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. cannot be recalled.

11. It would be apt to indicate that
Shri Sajjad Hussain, Advocate could not
dispute the aforesaid facts including that
the injured namely Majrub, Mo. Salman,
Mufidul, Mahboob, Shabnam Bano and
Naseera (mother of the deceased) were not
impleaded in the Application(s) under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. as also that these
injured persons refused to enter into the
compromise with the applicants.

12. Considered the aforesaid and
perused the records.

13. For the purposes of disposal of
instant application for recall of final order
dated 12.02.2025, this Court finds it
appropriate to take note of the application
preferred by the applicants under Section
482 Cr.P.C., drafted and signed by Shri
Sajjad
Hussain,
Advocate,
which
is
reproduced herein-under:-

"APPLICATION U/S 482 CR.P.C. No. OF
2025
(Now U/s 528 BNSS 2023)

1. Javed Ahmad @ Javed S/o
Kurban Ali, aged about 52 years R/o
Saidanpur, Saldanpur, Barabanki 225206

2. Sartaj S/o Kurban Ali, R/o
lalapur, aged about 30 years Dewan, PO:
Dewa Sharif, Dist: Bara Banki 225301

3.
MO.
Zafar
@Jafar
S/o
Mo.Nafees aged about 27 years R/o VTC:
Sipahiya, PO: Dewa Sharif, District:
Barabanki 225301

4. Hameedan @Hameeda W/o
Kurban Ahmad aged about 63 years R/o
lalapur, Dewan, PO: Dewa Sharif, Dist:
Bara Banki 225301
............APPLICANTS

VERSUS
1. State of U.P. through its
Principal
Secretary
Department of Home,
Civil
Secretariat,
Hazratganj, Lucknow
UP

2. Mohammad Naseem @Naseem
S/o Chutkau R/o Sipahiya PS Dewa District
Barabanki
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
..................OPPOSITE PARTIES

APPLICATION
U/S
482
CR.P.C.(528 BNSS)

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and
their accompanying Judges/Justice of High
Court of Judicature Allahabad Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow

THE
APPLICANTS
MOST
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That Instant matter is not
related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption
Act/ED/matters
relating
to
NRHM
Scam/GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc.

2. That the present petition is
being filed before this Hon'ble Court for
quashing the Charge Sheet No. A 51/17
and cognizance order dt. 05.05.2017,
summoning order dt. 10.05.2017 as well as
entire proceedings ST No. 110 of 2017
(State Govemment Vis Kurban & Ors)
registered
as
CNR
No.
UPBB010023332017 arising out of Case
Crime
No.
86/2017
U/s
323,504,506,452,308,324,325,304,147
&
148 IPC Police Station Dewa District-
Barabanki for the pending before Addl.
District and Sessions Judge Barabanki in
terms of verified compromise for securing
the ends of justice.

3. That earlier the applicants
have approached this Hon'ble Court vide
application U/s 482 (528 BNSS) No. 11901
of 2024 (Javed Ahmad @Javed Vs State of
UP & Ors) for quashing of Charge Sheet
No. A 51/17 and cognizance order dt.
05.05.2017,
summoning
order
dt.
10.05.2017 as well as entire proceedings
ST No. 110 of 2017 (State Government Vs
Kurban & Ors) registered as CNR No.
UPBB010023332017 arising out of Case
Crime
No.
86/2017
U/s
323,504,506,452,308,324,325,304,147
&
148 IPC Police Station Dewa District -
Barabanki for the pending before Addl.
District and Sessions Judge Barabanki in
terms of compromise, the Hon'ble Court
has disposed of the application with
direction to the applicants to appeal
before the trial court for compromise
verification and liberty to the applicants
to approach this Hon'ble Court after
compromise verification. Copy of the
Hon'ble Court Order dt. 03.01.2025 in
APPLICATION U/S 482 No.11901 of
2024 (Javed Ahmad @Javed And 3
Others Vs State Of U.P. Through Its
Principal Secretary And 3 Others) is
annexed herewith as Annexure No.1 to
this application.

4. That as per the order of the
Hon'ble High Court Order dt. 03.01.2025
the
applicants
presented
themselves
along with the opposite party no.4 before
the learned trial Court, who after all the
legal process had verified the original
compromise deed and prepared Its
verification report on 27.01.2025. For
perusal
the
certified
copy
of
the
verification
report
along
with
the
certified copy of the compromise deed are
collectively annexed as Annexure No. 2.

5. That Certified copy of Charge
Sheet dt. 11.04.2017-Cognizance Order
dt. 05.05.2017 & summoning order
dt.10.05.2017 is collectively annexed
herewith as Annexure No.3 to this
application.

6. That now there's no fruitful
purpose to continuing the proceedings in
ST No. 110 of 2017 (State Government Vs
Kurban & Ors) registered as CNR No.
UPBB010023332017 pending before Addl.
District and Sessions Judge Barabanki.

7. That as mentioned above both
parties have already settled the dispute and
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
351
do not want to prolong the matter therefore
a compromise deed was already achieved.

8. That the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Glan Singh versus State of Punjab
and Another reported In 2012 (SCC) Crl.
Law Journal 4934 had stated "54. Where
High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that dispute
between the offender and victim has been
settled
although
offerices
are
not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will
be an exercise in futility and justice in the
case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end is peace is restored,
securing the ends of justice being the
ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes
are acts which have harmful effect on the
public and consist in wrong doing that
seriously endangers and threatens well
being of society and it is not safe to leave
the crime doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute amicably or
that the victim has been paid compensation,
yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without
permission of the court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc; or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between offender
and victim can have no legal sanction at
all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear
civil flavor having arisen out of civil,
mercantile,
commercial,
financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences
arising
out
of
matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc or the
family dispute where the wrong is basically
to victim and the offender and victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably,
Irrespective of the fact that such offences
have not been made compoundable, the
High Court may within the framework of
it's inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if
it is satisfied that on the face of such
statement, there is hardly any likelihood of
offender being convicted and by not
quashing the criminal proceedings, justice
shall be casualty and ends of justice shall
be defeated. The above list is illustrative
and not exhaustive. Each case will depend
on its own facts and no hard and fast
category can be prescribed."

9. That in the interest of justice
the above mentioned criminal proceedings
are liable to be quashed in the light of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
laid down in GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 2012 (SCC) Crl.
Law Journal 33; SHIJI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
RADHIKA
AND
OTHERS
Manu/SC/1341/20011 NARINDER SINGH
VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB (2014) 6
SCC 466: YOGENDRA YADAV VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND (2014) 9 SCC
653,
PARBATBHAI
DAHIR
@PARBATBHAI,
BHIMSINGH
BHAI
KARMUR AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE
OF GUJRAT (2017) 9 SCC 641.

10. That there is no remedy
available to the applicant except to file this
application U/sec 482 Cr.P.C (528 BNSS).
PRAYER

Wherefore it is humbly prayed
May this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
quash the entire proceedings of ST No. 110
of 2017( State Government Vs Kurban &
Ors)
registered
as
CNR
No.
UPBB010023332017 arising out of Case
Crime
No.
86/2017
U/s
323,504,506,452,308,324,325,304,147
&
148 IPC Police Station Dewa DistrictBarabanki, pending before Addl. District
and Sessions Judge Barabanki on the basis
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Compromise Verification Report dated
27.01.2025 prepared by learned Trial
Court, on the respective direction of the
Hon'ble
High
Court
passed
in
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -11901 of
2024 (Javed Ahmad @Javed And 3 Others
Vs State Of U.P. Through its Principal
Secretary And 3 Others) in the interest of
justice. certified copy of the verification
report along with the certified copy of the
compromise deed are collectively annexed
as Annexure No. 2 to this application.

Any other order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of the case
may also be pleased for securing the ends
of justice."

14. No doubt that the final order in
terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C. could not be
recalled. However, in some circumstances
the final order can be recalled, and the
same can be deduced from the observations
made in judgments referred herein-below.

15. Before referring the judgments, it
would be apt to refer the maxim "Actus
Curiae neminem gravabit", which indicates
that the act of Court shall prejudice no one
and in such a situation, the Court is under
obligation to undo the wrong done to a
party by the act of the Court.

16. In the case of Smt. Sooraj Devi
vs. Pyare Lal and another, (1981) 1 SCC
500, the Hon'ble Apex Court took note of
the expression "clerical or arithmetical
error" indicated under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
and in regard to the same observed as
under:-

"A clerical or arithmetical error
is an error occasioned by an accidental slip
or omission of the court. It represents that
which the court never intended to say. It is
an error apparent on the face of the record
and does not depend for its discovery on
argument or disputation. An arithmetical
error is a mistake of calculation, and a
clerical error is a mistake in writing or
typing. Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v.
State of Orissa [AIR 1966 SC 1047 : (1966)
3 SCR 99 : (1966) 17 STC 360]."

17. In the case of Hotel Balaji and
others vs. State of A.P. and others, AIR
1993 SC 1048, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as under:-

"To perpetuate an error is no
heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of
judicial conscience. In this, we derive
comfort and strength from the wise and
inspiring words of Justice Bronson in
Pierce v. Delameter [ A.M.Y. p. 18] : 'a
Judge ought to be wise enough to know that
he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to
learn: great and honest enough to discard
all mere pride of opinion and follow truth
wherever it may lead: and courageous
enough to acknowledge his errors'."

18. In the case of State of Punjab vs.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC
770,
Hon'ble
Apex
Supreme
Court
observed and held that :-

"III. BAR TO REVIEW/ALTER-
JUDGMENT

44. There is no power of review
with the Criminal Court after judgment has
been rendered. The High Court can alter or
review its judgment before it is signed.
When an order is passed, it cannot be
reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on
an acknowledged principle of law that once
a matter is finally disposed of by a Court,
the said Court in the absence of a specific
statutory provision becomes functus officio
and is disentitled to entertain a fresh
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
353
prayer for any relief unless the former
order of final disposal is set aside by a
Court of competent jurisdiction in a
manner prescribed by law. The Court
becomes functus officio the moment the
order for disposing of a case is signed.
Such an order cannot be altered except to
the extent of correcting a clerical or
arithmetical error. There is also no
provision for modification of the judgment.
(See: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh
Bajwa & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 43; and
Chhanni v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC
3051).

45. Moreover, the prohibition
contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is
absolute; after the judgment is signed, even
the High Court in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no
authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the
same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P.,
(2012) 11 SCC 427: AIR 1994 SC 1544;
Hari Singh Mann (2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001
SCC (Cri) 113; and State of Kerala v. M.M.
Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752 : AIR
2001 SC 2145).

46. If a judgment has been
pronounced without jurisdiction or in
violation of principles of natural justice or
where the order has been pronounced
without giving an opportunity of being
heard to a party affected by it or where an
order was obtained by abuse of the process
of court which would really amount to its
being without jurisdiction, inherent powers
can be exercised to recall such order for
the reason that in such an eventuality the
order becomes a nullity and the provisions
of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate.
In such eventuality, the judgment is
manifestly contrary to the audi alteram
partem rule of natural justice. The power of
recall is different from the power of
altering/reviewing the judgment. However,
the party seeking recall/alteration has to
establish that it was not at fault. (Vide:
Chitawan & Ors. v. Mahboob Ilahi, 1970
Crl.L.J. 378 (All); Deepak Thanwardas
Balwani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
1985 Crl.L.J. 23 (Bom); Habu v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj. 83 (F.B.); Swarth
Mahto & Anr. v. Dharmdeo Narain Singh,
AIR 1972 SC 1300; Makkapati Nagaswara
Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan, AIR 1981 SC
1156; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West
Bengal & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 703; and
Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
AIR 2011 SC 1232).

47. This Court by virtue of Article
137 of the Constitution has been invested
with an express power to review any
judgment in Criminal Law and while no
such power has been conferred on the High
Court, inherent power of the court cannot
be exercised for doing that which is
specifically prohibited by the Code itself.
(Vide:
State
Represented
by
D.S.P.,
S.B.C.I.D., Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran &
Ors., AIR 2009 SC 46).

48. In Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare
Lal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 736, this Court
held that the prohibition in Section 362
Cr.P.C. against the Court altering or
reviewing its judgment, is subject to what is
"otherwise provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force".
Those words, however, refer to those
provisions only where the Court has been
expressly authorised by the Code or other
law to alter or review its judgment. The
inherent power of the Court is not
contemplated by the saving provision
contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. and,
therefore, the attempt to invoke that power
can be of no avail.

49. Thus, the law on the issue can
be summarised to the effect that the
criminal justice delivery system does not
clothe the court to add or delete any words,
except
to
correct
the
clerical
or
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arithmetical error as specifically been
provided under the statute itself after
pronouncement of the judgment as the
Judge becomes functus officio. Any mistake
or glaring omission is left to be corrected
only
by
the
appropriate
forum
in
accordance with law."

19. It would be relevant to refer a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant Raroria, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 2050 wherein it was held
that an application for recall of order was
maintainable as it was an application
seeking a procedural review and not a
substantive review to which Section 362
Cr.P.C. would be attracted. Supreme Court
has placed reference on the aspect of
diffference between recall and review by
referring a judgment passed in Budhia
Swain vs. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC
396.

20. In the case of Mukesh Updhyay
vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
another,
2019:AHC:42284, this Court at Allahabad
observed as under :-

"This issue has been dealt by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following
judgments :-
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Soorja Devi vs. Pyare Lal and Another
reported at (1981) 1 SCC 500 has held in
paras No.4, 5, 6 and 7 that :-

"4. The sole question before us is
whether the High Court was right in
refusing
to
entertain
Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 5127 of
1978 on the ground that it had no power to
review its order dated Ist September, 1970.
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure declares :- "Save as otherwise
provided by this Code or by any other law
for the time being in force, 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". It is apparent that what
the appellant seeks by the application is not
the correction of a clerical or arithmetical
error. What she desires is a declaration
that the High Court order dated September
1, 1970 does not affect her rights in the
house property and that the direction to
restore possession to Pyare Lal is confined
to that portion only of the house property
respecting which the offence of trespass
was committed so that she is not evicted
from the portion in her possession. The
appellant, in fact, asks for an adjudication
that the right to possession alleged by her
remains unaffected by the order dated
September 1, 1970. Pyare Lal disputes that
the order is not binding on her and that she
is entitled to the right in the property
claimed by her. Having considered the
matter, we are not satisfied that the
controversy can be brought within the
description "clerical or arithmetical error".
A clerical or arithmetical error is an error
occasioned by an accidental slip or
omission of the court. It represents that
which the court never intended to say. It is
an error apparent on the face of the record
and does not depend for its discovery on
argument or disputation. An arithmetical
error is a mistake of calculation, and a
clerical error is a mistake in writing or
typing. Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v.
State of Orissa.

5. The appellant points out that
he invoked the inherent power of the High
Court saved by Section 482 of the Code
and that notwithstanding the prohibition
imposed by Section 362 the High Court had
power to grant relief. Now it is well settled
that the inherent power of the court cannot
be exercised for doing that which is
specifically
prohibited
by
the
Code.
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
355
Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P3. It is true
that the prohibition in Section 362 against
the Court altering or reviewing its
judgment is subject to what is "otherwise
provided by this Code or by any other law
for the time being in force". Those words,
however, refer to those provisions only
where the Court has been expressly
authorised by the Code or other law to
alter or review its judgment. The inherent
power of the Court is not contemplated by
the saving provision contained in Section
362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke
that power can be of no avail.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Narayan Prasad vs. State of
Bihar reported at 2017 SCC Online SC
1738 has held that :-

6. In order to decide the
controversy at hand, it would be useful to
reproduce Sections 362 and 482 of The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
[hereinafter 'CrPC' for brevity]

362. Court not to alter judgment.-
Save as otherwise provided by this Code or
by any other law for the time being in
force, 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.

482. Saving of inherent powers of
High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

7. Plan reading of these Sections
indicate that the prohibition under the
Section 362 of Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the
judgment is signed even the High Court in
exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 of CrPC has no authority or
jurisdiction to alter/review the same. The
inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC
was purported to avoid the abuse of the
process of the Court and to secure ends of
justice. Such power cannot be exercised to
do something which is expressly barred
under the Code.

8. If any consideration of the
facts by way of review is not permissible
under the Code and is expressly barred, it
is not for the Court to exercise its inherent
power to reconsider the matter."

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in a judgment dated 30.5.2016 passed in
Criminal
Misc.
Recall
Application
No.126367 of 2016 in Application u/s 482
No.5938 of 2016 has held that :-

"Full Bench of five Judges in
Mahesh Vs. State, 1971 ALJ page 668 held,
"the legal position can be summarized by
laying down that the High Court is not
possessed of general power to review,
revise or reconsider the judgment or order
duly pronounced in criminal appeal or a
criminal revision, though the judgment or
order can be so reviewed, revised or
reconsidered in exceptional circumstances
in exercise of the inherent power under
Section 561-A (presently section 482),
Cr.P.C, provided that the inherent power is
so exercised for one of the three purposes
detailed therein".

There is no power of review with
the criminal court after the judgment has
been rendered. The High Court can alter or
review its judgment before it is signed.
When an order is passed, it cannot be
reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C is based on
an acknowledged principle of law that once
a matter is finally disposed of by a court,
the said court in the absence of a specific
statutory provision becomes functus officio
and is dis-entitled to entertain a fresh
prayer for any relief unless the former
order of final disposal is set aside by a
court of competent jurisdiction in a manner
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prescribed by law. The court becomes
functus officio the moment the order for
disposing of a case is signed. Such an order
cannot be altered except to the extent of
correcting a clerical or arithmetical error.
There is also no provision for modification
of the judgment. ( Vide Hari singh Mann
Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, 2001 (1) SCC
169).

Moreover
the
prohibition
contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C is
absolute; after the judgement is signed,
even the High Court in exercise of its
inherent power under Section 482 CrP.C
has
no
authority
or jurisdiction
to
alter/review the same (vide Moti Lal Vs.
State of M.P. (2012) 11 SCC 427).

If
a
judgement
has
been
pronounced without jurisdiction or in
violation of principle of natural justice or
where the order has been pronounced
without giving an opportunity of being
heard to a party affected by it or where an
order was obtained by abuse of the process
of court which would really amount to its
being without jurisdiction, inherent powers
can be exercised to recall such order for
the reason that in such an eventuality the
order becomes a nullity and the provisions
of Section 362 Cr.P.C would not operate.
In such an eventuality, the judgment is
manifestly contrary to the audi alteram
partem rule of natural justice. The power of
recall is different from the power of
altering/reviewing the judgment. However,
the party seeking recall/alteration has to
establish that it was not at fault.( vide
Chitawan Vs. Mahboob Ilahi, 1970 Cri. LJ
378( All), Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West
Bengal (2009) 2 SCC 703)".

In view of the abovementioned
judgments, the review petition is expressly
barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C and
applicant has not able to point out that
impugned judgment was passed contrary to
the rule of natural justice or passed without
jurisdiction, therefore, even under power of
482 Cr.P.C., this review application cannot
be entertained. Thus, the present review
application
is
rejected
being
not
maintainable."

21. In the case of Kusha Duruka v.
State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432,
Hon'ble Apex Court has noted and held as
under: -

"2. About three decades ago, this
Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
239] was faced with a situation where an
attempt was made to deceive the Court and
interfere with the administration of justice.
The litigant was held to be guilty of
contempt of court. It was a case in which
the husband had filed fabricated document
to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking
transfer
of
matrimonial
proceedings.
Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he
was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment
by this Court. This Court observed as
under : (SCC pp. 423-24 & 427, paras 1-2
& 14)

"1. The stream of administration
of justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court's atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters
of
judicial
firmament
are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of
to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to
fraud, deflects the course of judicial
proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only
4 All. Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
357
to punish them for the wrong done, but also
to deter others from indulging in similar
acts which shake the faith of people in the
system of administration of justice.

14. The legal position thus is that
if the publication be with intent to deceive
the court or one made with an intention to
defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of
justice. It would, in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated document is
filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was
apparently to deceive the court; the
intention to defraud is writ large. Anil
Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D.
Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481] it was
observed by this Court : (SCC p. 493, para
39)

"39. If the primary object as
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs. [R. v. General Commissioners for
the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the
District of Kensington, ex p Princess
Edmond De Polignac, (1917) 1 KB 486 :
86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (KB & CA)] is
kept in mind, an applicant who does not
come with candid facts and "clean breast"
cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled
hands". Suppression or concealment of
material facts is not an advocacy. It is a
jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or
misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If
the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads
the court, the court has inherent power in
order to protect itself and to prevent an
abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the
court does not reject the petition on that
ground, the court would be failing in its
duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of the court."

(emphasis supplied)

4. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.
[Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC
114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324] , this Court
noticed the progressive decline in the
values of life and the conduct of the new
creed of litigants, who are far away from
truth. It was observed as under : (SCC pp.
116-17, paras 1-2)

"1. For many centuries Indian
society cherished two basic values of life
i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (nonviolence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice-delivery system which was in vogue
in the pre-Independence era and the people
used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However,
post-Independence period has seen drastic
changes
in
our
value
system.
The
materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
the
court
proceedings.

2. In the last 40 years, a new
creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort
to falsehood and unethical means for
achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim
or final."

(emphasis supplied)

5. In Moti Lal Songara v. Prem
Prakash [Moti Lal Songara v. Prem
Prakash, (2013) 9 SCC 199 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 872] , this Court, considering the
issue regarding concealment of facts before
the Court, observed that "court is not a
laboratory where children come to play",
and opined as under : (SCC p. 208, paras
19-20)

"19. The second limb of the
submission is whether in the obtaining
factual matrix, the order passed by the
High Court discharging the respondentaccused is justified in law. We have clearly
stated that though the respondent was fully
aware about the fact that charges had been
framed against him by the learned trial
Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the
notice of the Revisional Court hearing the
revision
against
the
order
taking
cognizance.
It
is
a
clear
case
of
suppression.