1 2025:CGHC:48720-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 305 of 2025 S.K. Nivasarkar S/o S.C. Nivasarkar Thakur Aged About 58 Years R/o 738, Sindhiya Nagar, Kali Badi Mandir, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Mantralay Atal Nagar Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Station House Officer P.S. Nawagadh, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.24 12:05:06 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.09.2025 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review/recall of order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.Cr. No. 439/2025. 2. The review petitioner in person seeks review of the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in W.P.Cr. No. 439/2025, which was dismissed holding thus : “7. From bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended in the petition, it is manifest that the matter relates to obtaining loan by submitting false documents and cheating. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashment of FIR. From bare perusal of the FIR, pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioner is that, he had issued utilization certificate on the basis of which the final installment of loan was released and huge amount was involved which requires thorough investigation, therefore, at this stage, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end and expeditiously. 3 8. In that view of the matter, the WPCR is dismissed, at the motion stage itself.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the utilization certificate has been issued by the Branch Manager to the co-accused Vikash Dhar Diwan and the branch manager had also written a letter to NABARD for grant of subsidy. The allegation in the F.I.R. that the present applicant has issued utilization certificate to the co- accused Vikas Dhar Diwan is also incorrect because the said utilization certificate has been issued by the Branch Manager. It is further submitted that in MCRCA No.870/2024 order dated 06.08.2024 was passed considering that the utilization certificate was issued by the Branch Manager of the bank and not by the present petitioner. He further submits that from the above facts in the writ petition and annexed document particularly Annexure A/4 it is clear that utilization certificate has not been issued by petitioner but the petition has been rejected on the ground that utilization certificate has been issued by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand would support the order passed by this court in the writ appeal and prays for dismissal of the present review petition. 4 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 6. Bare perusal of the order under review, it is manifest that the WPCR preferred on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner was duly heard in presence of counsel for both the parties and stood dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025, which is under review. 7. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 8. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re- appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is 5 impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 9. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view. 10. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib