# Pranay Krishna v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 9555 of 2022
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pranay-krishna-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53623
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Whether a separate application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable for recalling an exparte order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a
criminal revision, or whether such recall must be
sought through a miscellaneous application in
the same proceeding.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 362, 482 -
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - seeking
recall of an ex-parte order - in Criminal Revision,
on the ground that the applicant was not
personally served notice and thus could not
appear
-
Preliminary
objection
regarding
maintainability of a separate application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling an ex-parte
order passed in a criminal revision - and the
applicant ought to have filed a miscellaneous
application for recalling the order in Criminal
Revision - Court observed that although it
possesses inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure
justice, such powers must be exercised within
the same proceeding and not through a
separate application - citing precedents like
Tribhuvan v. State of U.P. and Badloo v. State,
the Court held that, for seeking recall of an exparte order passed in a Criminal Revision, the
petitioner should approach the same court by
fling an application for recall of the order and a
separate application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be entertained for this purpose -
consequently, the application is dismissed, with
liberty to the applicant, to file a suitable
application in the criminal revision. (Para - 7, 8,
9)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Tribhuvan v. State of U.P., (1992) L.Cr.R. 165) -
Badloo v. State (1999 SCC OnLine All 644 =
(1999) L.Cr.R. 275).

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent powers - Ex-parte
order - Criminal Revision - Recall application -
Co-ordinate Bench - Abuse of process - Ends of
justice

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 24.03.2022 passed by a co-ordinate
bench of this court in Criminal Revision No.
584/2016.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Rajendra Prasad
Mishra.
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Hans Raj Verma -
AGA.
7 All. Pranay Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
195

## Text

194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation in the form of the pictures and
the message posted on facebook and the
statements of the informant and the victim
recorded by the investigating officer prima
facie make out commission of offences
punishable under Section 509 IPC and
Section 67 of the I.T. Act, there is no error
or illegality in the charge-sheet submitted
against the applicant for the aforesaid two
offences. The trial court has not committed
any error of illegality in taking cognizance
of the offences and in summoning the
applicant to face trial.

18. The application lacks merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 194
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI , J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9555 of 2022

Pranay Krishna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajendra Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a separate application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable for recalling an exparte order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a
criminal revision, or whether such recall must be
sought through a miscellaneous application in
the same proceeding.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 362, 482 -
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - seeking
recall of an ex-parte order - in Criminal Revision,
on the ground that the applicant was not
personally served notice and thus could not
appear
-
Preliminary
objection
regarding
maintainability of a separate application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling an ex-parte
order passed in a criminal revision - and the
applicant ought to have filed a miscellaneous
application for recalling the order in Criminal
Revision - Court observed that although it
possesses inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure
justice, such powers must be exercised within
the same proceeding and not through a
separate application - citing precedents like
Tribhuvan v. State of U.P. and Badloo v. State,
the Court held that, for seeking recall of an exparte order passed in a Criminal Revision, the
petitioner should approach the same court by
fling an application for recall of the order and a
separate application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be entertained for this purpose -
consequently, the application is dismissed, with
liberty to the applicant, to file a suitable
application in the criminal revision. (Para - 7, 8,
9)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Tribhuvan v. State of U.P., (1992) L.Cr.R. 165) -
Badloo v. State (1999 SCC OnLine All 644 =
(1999) L.Cr.R. 275).

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent powers - Ex-parte
order - Criminal Revision - Recall application -
Co-ordinate Bench - Abuse of process - Ends of
justice

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 24.03.2022 passed by a co-ordinate
bench of this court in Criminal Revision No.
584/2016.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Rajendra Prasad
Mishra.
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Hans Raj Verma -
AGA.
7 All. Pranay Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
195
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra,
the learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A.
and perused the record.

2. By means of the present application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant has sought recall of an order
dated 24.03.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this court in Crl. Revision No.584
of 2016 whereby the revision filed by the
opposite party No.2 was allowed after
hearing submissions of the learned Counsel
for
the
revisionist
and
the
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate,
recording
that
nobody
had
put
in
appearance on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 (the applicant in the present case). The
learned Counsel for the applicant is seeking
recall of the order dated 24.03.2022 on the
ground that notice of the revision had not
been served on the applicant personally
and, therefore, the applicant could not
appear in that revision and the order was
passed ex-parte against him.

3. The learned AGA has raised a
preliminary objection that for recall of an
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a
Criminal revision, a separate application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not be
maintainable and the applicant ought to
have filed a miscellaneous application for
recall of the order in the Criminal Revision
itself.

4. Replying to the aforesaid objection,
the learned counsel for the applicant has
relied upon a decision rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Tribhuvan
v. State of U.P., (1992) L.Cr.R. 165
wherein this Court held that the bar
contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C. will
not apply against recall of a judgment and
this Court has inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall an order
passed without hearing a party. The order
in the case of Tribhuvan (Supra) was
passed
on
Criminal
Miscellaneous
Application No. 646 of 1984 filed in
Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1977, which
appeal had been decided without hearing a
party and not on a separate application filed
and registered afresh under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the
applicant next relied upon a decision
rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Badloo v. State, 1999 SCC
OnLine All 644 = (1999) L.Cr.R. 275
wherein this Court held that the power of
recall is different from the power of
altering or reviewing a judgment and the
Court has inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to recall a judgment passed
without hearing a party. This judgment was
also given upon in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 2746 of 1998 filed in
Criminal Revision No. 612 of 1982 which
had been decided without hearing a party
and not in a separate fresh application filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that
"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. The inherent powers inhere in this
Court, i.e., these powers exist essentially
and permanently. The exercise of the
inherent powers is not limited to a separate
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and such power can be exercised by this
Court in any proceeding before it, 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.

8. In exercise of its inherent powers
recognized under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this
Court can recall an order passed in any case
ex-parte, upon sufficient cause being
shown for non-appearance, when the case
was decided. However, in exercise of the
inherent powers, a Bench of this Court
cannot interfere in any order passed by
another Bench of the Court. The applicant
seeking recall of an order passed in any
case has to file a miscellaneous application
in the same case and he cannot file a fresh
case for this purpose.

9. Accordingly, I am of the considered
view that for seeking recall of an ex-parte
order passed in a Criminal Revision, the
petitioner should approach the same Court by
filing an application for recall of the order
and a separate application under Section 482
cannot be entertained for this purpose.

10. In view thereof, the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby
dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner
to file a suitable application in the Criminal
Revision which is said to have been
decided ex-parte.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 196
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 25348 of 2025
Kamlesh Meena & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ravi Kant, Vatsala

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Dharmendra Shukla, G.A., Sunil Kumar
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Issue
arose
for
consideration
whether
prospective
accused
against
whom
only
direction has been issued by Magistrate u/s
173(4) read with Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S.
2023, for registration of F.I.R. and investigation,
prior to stage of cognizance or issuance of
process, possesses any locus standi or legal
right to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 528
B.N.S.S. to challenge such order, and whether
Magistrate, while directing registration of F.I.R.,
had complied with procedural safeguards and
applied judicial mind in accordance with
statutory mandate.

Head Notes
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- ss. 173(4), 175(3) - Applicants invoked
inherent jurisdiction of u/s 528 of B.N.S.S,
2023, seeking quashing of order dated
05.07.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions
Judge, whereby, in exercise of powers u/s
173(4) B.N.S.S., Station House Officer,
was directed to register F.I.R. and conduct
investigation on complaint of respondent
no. 2, a retired Bank Manager belonging
to Scheduled Caste community, alleging
that applicants, in conspiracy with others,
had fabricated and forwarded forged
complaint and documents in name of one
other person to higher bank authorities
with
intent
to
defame
and
falsely
implicate him - Applicants contended that
no cognizable offence was made out and
that
proceedings
were
instituted
to
obstruct
ongoing
departmental
action
against
complainant
for
alleged
embezzlement committed by him during
his service period whereas complainant
maintained
that
materials
disclosed