HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 6 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Anamika Mishra, the petitioner, who appeared in person. 2. This is a review petition against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4998 of 2025 (Anamika Mishra vs. State of U.P. & others). 3. On being asked as to what is the apparent error on the face of the judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 or as to what is the illegality in the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court, petitioner could not point out any error apparent on the face of order or any illegality of order under review dated 18.08.2025. Further, nothing has been argued to the effect that certain materials have been placed by the petitioner for consideration but the same could not be considered by this Court while passing the order dated 18.08.2025. 4. It is settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that the scope of the review is very limited and unless & until an apparent error is pointed out on the judgment in question or any apparent illegality has been made, the order in question may not be reviewed as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Thungabhadra Industries Limited vs. Governor of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1980) 2 SCC 167 and in the case of Lily Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 that review cannot be an appeal in disguise to re-hear the matter. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Subhash vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537 as well as Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095 and Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banki (Smt.) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : In Person Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anamika Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. In the instant case, since there is no apparent error or illegality in the judgment and order dated 18.08.2025, therefore, this review application is devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected. 6. Resultantly, the review application is rejected. However, the review-applicant may avail other remedy available to her before appropriate court of law. 7. No order as to costs. September 17, 2025 Om CRRA No. 6 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench