SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or ders or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PCRL No. 1 2 6 2 of 2 0 2 5 Jashandeep Singh --Petitioner Ver su s State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Mohit Bhauriyal, learned counsel for the private Respondent. 4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Applicant in Restoration Application. 5. The present Recall Application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition whereby the petition was disposed of by allowing the compounding application jointly filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 2, resulting in quashing of FIR No. 408 of 2025 dated 15.09.2025 registered at P.S. Kashipur under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS, 2023. 6. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant in Restoration Application submits that the aforesaid FIR relates to a fraudulent transfer of vehicle bearing registration No. UK18M5302, and that the Applicant had earlier made complaints to the police authorities as well as to the transport authorities regarding the said transaction. It is contended that the FIR was lodged in collusion with the Petitioner and thereafter the same was compounded, which has caused prejudice to the Applicant. 7. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the order dated 15.10.2025 was passed on the basis of a compounding application jointly filed by the Petitioner and Respondent no. 2, who were the parties to the FIR in question. The present Applicant was not a party to the said writ petition nor to the compromise on the basis of which the FIR was quashed. 8. It is well settled that the power of recall of an order is extremely limited and can ordinarily be exercised only to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. In this regard, reference may be made to the principle embodied in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding Section 403 of BNSS), which stipulates that once a judgment or final order disposing of a case has been signed, the same cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 9. In the present case, the Applicant has not pointed out any clerical or arithmetical error in the order dated 15.10.2025. Rather, the submissions made in the recall application pertain to disputed questions of fact relating to the alleged fraudulent transfer of the vehicle and the manner in which the FIR came to be lodged. Such issues cannot be examined in proceedings seeking recall of a final order. 10. Further, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any locus standi to seek recall of the order inasmuch as the order was passed on the basis of compromise between the parties to the FIR and the applicant was neither a party to the writ proceedings nor directly aggrieved by the order passed therein. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to recall the order dated 15.10.2025. Accordingly, the Recall Application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 2 7 .0 2 .2 0 2 6 SB