ORDER : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) with prayer for restoration of Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, by recalling or modifying or cancelling the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. 2. The petitioner in this case is Sri Motiur Rahman Laskar and the respondents are the State of Assam, the Divisional Forest Officer and Md. Nurul Haque, arrayed as respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 respectively. The name of the respondent No. 2 Md. Maklisur Rahman @ Maklish Mia was struck off vide the order dated 18.06.2024 on submission by the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 2 (Two) petitions arising out of the same cause of action being Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/2017 was pending in this Court. 4. Vide Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, the petitioner has challenged the illegality of the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Revision No. 46/2015, as well as impugned order dated 10.08.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Revision No. 41/2015. 5. Vide Criminal Revision No. 386/2017, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi in connection with GR Case No. 1173/2015, corresponding to Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 435/2015. In both the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/2017, the issue is relating to an elephant and its calf and for zimma of the same. Mr. R. Dhar was the engaged counsel in both the above mentioned criminal petitions. 6. It is further submitted that Mr. R. Dhar, who was in fact engaged by the petitioner in both the petitions, appeared in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 on 15.12.2022, 02.05.2023 and 18.05.2023, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner requested Mr. R. Dhar to be led by another advocate in both the petitions and accordingly, Mr. A.K. Purkayastha on the request of Mr. R. Dhar appeared in both the petitions. It is further submitted that it is a matter of record that the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 was dismissed on withdrawal on consideration of the prayer made by Mr. R Dhar and the said withdrawal was not in fact known to the other set of advocates Mr. A.K. Purkayastha and Ms. R. Dhar appeared in both the petitions. It is further submitted that it is a matter of record that the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 was dismissed on withdrawal on consideration of the prayer made by Mr. R Dhar and the said withdrawal was not in fact known to the other set of advocates Mr. A.K. Purkayastha and Ms. R. Rongmei, who were not aware of the said dismissal of the Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 on withdrawal vide order dated 01.12.2022. 7. It is further submitted that Mr. R. Dhar, as instructed by the petitioner conducted both the cases as would be evident from the orders dated 01.12.2022, 15.12.2022, 02.05.2023 and 18.05.2023 passed in connection with Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017. 8. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner could not contact Mr. R. Dhar, during the time when he was ailing and the petitioner was not aware of any such development relating to the withdrawal of the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. The petitioner also had to undergo urgent surgery and he was confined to bed owing to his acute physical ailment. Even during the post-operation period, he was unable to contact Mr. R. Dhar and neither did the petitioner nor his engaged counsel were in a position to contact each other and consequentially, owing to the long continuous communication gap, the petitioner was unable to contact Mr. R. Dhar. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to take any appropriate steps or to seek advice from any of his advocates. 9. It is further submitted that only in the second week of August 2023, the petitioner somehow could recover from his prolonged ailment and it was at this point of time that the petitioner contacted his Advocate Mr. R. Dhar and the petitioner was then informed that the Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 was withdrawn by his engaged counsel on 01.12.2022. On being so informed, the petitioner was surprised and he failed to appreciate the reason of such withdrawal. On further enquiry, the learned Advocate Mr. R Dhar also apprised the petitioner that since the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 is pending for hearing, the dismissal of Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 renders the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 redundant. On being instructed by the learned Advocate Mr. On further enquiry, the learned Advocate Mr. R Dhar also apprised the petitioner that since the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 is pending for hearing, the dismissal of Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 renders the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 redundant. On being instructed by the learned Advocate Mr. R. Dhar during telephonic conversation on the second week of August, 2023, the petitioner could understand that a bonafide and unintentional mistake on the part of the advocate might have occurred owing to the long communication gap between the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. R. Dhar. 10. It is submitted that if the Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 is not restored to file and heard on merits along with the Criminal Revision Petition No. 386 of 2017 (pending before this Court), the petitioner will be denied of his legitimate, lawful and bonafide ownership of the elephant and her calf. 11. It is submitted by the petitioner that this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC can be disposed of by this Court. The bar under Section 362 of the CrPC may not affect the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to vacate the impugned order or to restore or modify the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 laid stress in his argument that this petition is barred by limitation. 13. It was also at a much later stage, the petitioner realized the fallacy that owing to the withdrawal of Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017, the rights and interests of the petitioner stood seriously affected and the petitioner has been highly prejudiced, by the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. 14. In the instant case, although it appears that the petitioner may be highly prejudiced as this petition was disposed of on withdrawal, yet the petitioner's prayer to restore the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 to file, cannot be considered owing to the bar under Section 362 of the CrPC. 15. Section 362 of the CrPC reads:- “362. Court not to alter judgment. 15. Section 362 of the CrPC reads:- “362. Court not to alter judgment. – Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.” 16. In this case too, the petitioner has not alleged that the learned counsel Mr. R. Dhar had been lacking authority, but the case of the petitioner is that owing to the miscommunication or lack of communication for a prolonged period between the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, the Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 was withdrawn without the knowledge of the petitioner. Now, due to the specific bar under Section 362 of the CrPC, this Court cannot review its own order in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, except when the order is alleged to have been fraudulently procured. I would like to gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajeshwari Versus H.N. Jagadish reported in (2008) 4 SCC 82 wherein it has been held that:- “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. The appellant did not make any complaint against her 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 Paras 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. ***** ***** ***** “18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. ***** ***** ***** “18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the Bar Council concerned or file an appropriate action against the lawyer concerned.” 17. In the case of Hari Singh Mann Versus Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 169 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :- “8. We have noted with disgust that the impugned orders were passed completely ignoring the basic principles of criminal law. No review of an order is contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the disposal of the main petition on 7-1-1999, there was no lis pending in the High Court wherein the respondent could have filed any miscellaneous petition. The filing of a miscellaneous petition not referable to any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure or the rules of the court, cannot be resorted to as a substitute of fresh litigation. The record of the proceedings produced before us shows that directions in the case filed by the respondents were issued apparently without notice to any of the respondents in the petition. Merely because the Respondent 1 was an Advocate, did not justify the issuance of directions at his request without notice of the other side. The impugned orders dated 30-4- 1999 and 21-7-1999 could not have been passed by the High Court under its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The practice of filing miscellaneous petitions after the disposal of the main case and issuance of fresh directions in such miscellaneous petitions by the High Court are unwarranted, not referable to any statutory provision and in substance the abuse of the process of the court.” **** * * “10. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The section 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 disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same 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 official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or an arithmetical error. The reliance of the respondent on Talab Haji Hussain's case is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that inherent powers conferred on High Courts under Section 561-A (Section 482 of the new Code) has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7-1-1999. The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment.” 18. Reverting back to this case, it is held that unfortunately due to the long communication gap between the engaged counsel and the petitioner, Criminal Petition No. 461 of 2017 was withdrawn to the detriment of the petitioner. No direct allegation has been brought up against the engaged counsel by the petitioner, except for the fact that the other set of lawyers were not aware of the withdrawal of the petition. It would be apt to reiterate that no lack of authority of the lawyer withdrawing the petition is also discernible. 19. No direct allegation has been brought up against the engaged counsel by the petitioner, except for the fact that the other set of lawyers were not aware of the withdrawal of the petition. It would be apt to reiterate that no lack of authority of the lawyer withdrawing the petition is also discernible. 19. It is not disputed by the petitioner as well as by the respondents that Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, which was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, was finally disposed of vide an order of this Court dated 01.12.2022. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court after finally disposing of a case, shall alter or review the order or judgment, except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. This Court has become functus officio after passing the order dated 01.12.2022 in connection with Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. Section 362 of the CrPC sets a bar to review, recall, modify or cancel the order, disposing of the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017. Despite the inconveniences created, on withdrawal of the criminal petition, the Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, cannot be restored to file. 20. In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajeshwari (supra) and Hari Singh Mann (supra), this petition is also dismissed as this petition is devoid of merits. 21. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.