[2025:RJ-JP:41298] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2020 1. Surat Bai W/o Shri Shambhu Singh D/o Shri Siddhu Singh, Aged About 19 Years, Occupation House Wife, R/o House No. 121, Village Kheda Pachhola Roopakhedi, Ujjain 456668 (Madhya Pradesh) 2. Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Rajputoo Ka Mohalla, Dug Police Station Dug, Dist. Jhalawar (Rajasthan). ----Non-applciants/Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jhalawar (Rajasthan). 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Dug, Distt. Jhalawar (Rajasthan). 5. Siddhu Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Kheda Pachhola Police Station Makdon, Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) 6. Kemal Singh S/o Unkar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kheda Chitavliya, Police Station Makdon, Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/10/2025 1. This application has been moved by the respondent No.5 in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 469/2019 for recalling order [2025:RJ-JP:41298] (2 of 3) [CRLMA-21/2020] dated 02.07.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order to dispose of the S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 469/2019. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the petitioners have shown incorrect age of the victim in the petition and thus mislead the Hon'ble Court and sought directions for getting the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that had the correct age of the victim been disclosed, then this Court would not have passed the order dated 02.07.2019. 3. The application was seriously opposed by learned Public Prosecutor by submitting that recalling or reviewing order passed in criminal petition is not permissible under law, until and unless, any error limited to clerical, typographical or arithmetical has been shown in the application. In the instant application, in fact, the applicant is praying to recall and review the earlier order dated 02.07.2019 on merits, which is misconceived prayer on behalf of respondent-applicants. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. Even the documents enclosed with the criminal writ petition have been examined, which reveal that Adhaar Card of the victim as well as marriage registration certificates were placed on record by the petitioners, and on this basis, order dated 02.07.2019 was passed by this Court. Under these circumstances, it is wholly incorrect on the part of the respondent-applicants to submit that the age of the victim was not taken into consideration at the time of passing the order dated 02.07.2019. [2025:RJ-JP:41298] (3 of 3) [CRLMA-21/2020] 6. Even otherwise, scope of recalling in criminal jurisprudence is extremely limited and the prayer made by the petitioners in the instant application is beyond such scope. Hence, there is no substance and merit in the instant misc. application and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/11