2025:HHC:20573 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP No. : 2132 of 2025 in CrMMO No.999 of 2024 a/w CrMP No.2130 of 2025 in CrMMO No.964 of 2024 Reserved on : 03.06.2025 Decided on : 30.06.2025 CrMMO No.999 of 2024 Devakar Sharma & Anr. …Petitioners Versus 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 2025:HHC:20573 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 question’), registered with Police Station Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 3(1)(p) of the 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 3 2025:HHC:20573 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 was also investigated by the police officers of the same Department and in such circumstances, according to the 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. 4 2025:HHC:20573 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 were required to be enquired/investigated. 8. It is the case of 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 placed on record those notifications as Annexures R-5/2 and R-5/3. 5 2025:HHC:20573 9. Recalling has also been sought on the ground that this Court has wrongly considered the defence of the petitioner(s), which is not liable to be taken into consideration. The cancellation report, which has been relied upon by this Court, is stated to be not supplied to the applicant and respondent No.4. 9.1 Highlighting the fact that by quashing the FIR in question on 10.01.2025, the applicant has been deprived from exercising his right to assert his case, before the District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee, constituted under the SC&ST Act. The cancellation report has also not been produced before the Court. 10. Judgment dated 10.01.2025 has also been sought to be recalled on the ground that this Court has wrongly held that the cancellation proceedings could not be permitted to continue, as, the same would also amount to abuse of the process of law. These findings are stated to be erroneous. 11. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, appearing for applicant/respondent No.5, has prayed that both the applications may be allowed by 6 2025:HHC:20573 recalling the judgment dated 10.01.2025 and the matter may be heard afresh. 12. Perusal of record shows that in CrMMO No.964 of 2024, respondents No.5 had put appearance on 24.10.2024 and the matter was adjourned for 04.11.2024. On that day, respondents No.1 to 3 had filed the reply to the petition and the following order was passed:- “Reply to the petition has been filed. Be taken on record. Copy supplied. In the reply, a specific stand has been taken that there is no prima facie case constituting any offence or to make out a case against the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the final cancellation report has been prepared on 23.10.2024. In view of the above, list on 02.12.2024 for consideration.” 12.1. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned for 02.12.2024 and thereafter, for 04.12.2024. On both dates, respondents No.4 and 5 had put appearance, before the Court. 12.2. It can be said that right from 24.10.2024, respondent No.5/applicant was appearing and from 04.11.2024, respondents No.4 and 5 both were putting appearance, before this Court. Thereafter, arguments were also heard and now, applicant has sought the recalling of 7 2025:HHC:20573 the judgment, by virtue of which, the petitions were allowed, mainly, on the ground which they could take in the appeal, as, it is trite law that after passing of the judgment, this Court becomes functus officio and the bar, as created by Section 362 of CrPC, comes into play. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘R. Rajeshwari Vs. H.N. Jagadish’, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 82, has held that recalling is permissible only in some rare cases, where, the judgment has been obtained by practicing fraud. Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. In view of the aforementioned specific bar created in regard to exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court to review its own order, we are of the opinion that ordinarily exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be unwarranted. We assume that in some rare cases, the High Court may do so where a judgment has been obtained from it by practicing fraud but it does not appear that such a case has been made out. Appellant did not make any complaint against his lawyer. She did not even implead her lawyer as a party. The affidavit affirmed in support of the application verified as under : "That the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information." Verification of such an affidavit affirmed in support of an application containing serious allegations against a member of a profession is wholly unwarranted.” 8 2025:HHC:20573 14. If, the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajeshwari’s case (supra), the main ground, which has been taken by the applicant, does not fall within the term “that the judgment has been obtained by practicing fraud”. 15. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.’, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, has given the circumstances, in which, the judgment can be recalled. Relevant paragraphs 44 to 46 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:- “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 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 9 2025:HHC:20573 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., AIR 1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, 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.” 16. Considering the fact that the applicant has been impleaded in the petitions as respondent No.5, along with his wife, being respondent No.4, and the arguments were heard, it cannot be said that the judgment has been passed by this Court, in violation of the principle of natural justice. 10 2025:HHC:20573 17. When, the reply to the petition was filed, by respondents No.1 to 3, then, there is nothing on record to show that respondents No.4 and 5 had ever intended to file reply to the petition. Even, in the order dated 10.01.2025, it has been observed by this Court that the police had filed the cancellation report. Despite this fact, the documents, which have been annexed with the applications, have not been prayed to be produced by the applicant. 18. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for recalling of the judgment dated 10.01.2025, passed by this Court, in CrMMOs No.994 & 964 of 2024. 19. Moreover, the grounds, which the applicant could take in the appeal/revision, before the higher Court, cannot be considered, while deciding the applications for recalling the order/judgment. 20. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer, so made in both the applications. Consequently, the same are dismissed. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 30, 2025(Gaurav Thakur)