1 2026:CGHC:2757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 572 of 2020 Lekhram @ Golu S/o Ramji Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Kastkar, R/o- Village Banranka, Police Station- Than, Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In Crr No. 542/2019), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1 In Crr No. 542/2019), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Patel S/o Khelan Singh Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o- Banranka, Police Station- Than, Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant In Crr No. 542/2019), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 :Mr. S.A.H. Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, learned counsel for the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 respondent/State as well as Mr. S.A.H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. That the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred seeking recall/modification of the judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed in CRR No. 542/2019, as the said judgment has been rendered on the basis of incorrect and misleading submissions made by Respondent No. 2, whereby the Court was led to exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal, which is ex facie impermissible in law. In view of the settled position that only an appeal lies against an order of acquittal, the impugned judgment amounts to an abuse of the process of court and calls for interference under the inherent powers of this Court. Hence, the present petition. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the present respondent No. 2 (who was the applicant in CRR No. 542/2019) had filed a criminal revision bearing CRR No. 542/2019 against the order passed by the learned Sessions Appellate Court, Bemetara in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2018, whereby the conviction of the present petitioner (respondent in CRR No. 542/2019) was converted from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court was remanded the said revision and directed a re-trial, however, it is respectfully submitted that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court was deliberately misled, which amounts to abuse of the process of law, as the revision was allowed 3 on the basis of pre-amendment legal position and solely on the submissions made by the present respondent No. 2, without considering the submissions of the present petitioner. Further, by allowing the said revision, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court committed a jurisdictional error, as the exercise of revisional jurisdiction was impermissible in law inasmuch as no revision is maintainable against an order arising out of acquittal, for which the proper remedy lies by way of an appeal. It is pertinent to note that the present petitioner had specifically challenged the maintainability of the aforesaid revision in view of Section 372 of the CrPC and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Dr. Pawan Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRR No. 1105/2018, wherein it has been categorically held that no revision is maintainable against an order of acquittal and the same can only be assailed by way of an appeal. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, CRA No. 1852/2019, has further held that High Courts have the power to recall and/or modify their orders and that the bar contained under Section 362 of the CrPC does not apply. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court committed a manifest error in allowing the revision by exercising a jurisdiction which was otherwise impermissible in law, inasmuch as no criminal revision is maintainable against an order of 4 acquittal. The present petitioner never relied upon Ganesha v. Sharanappa and Another, (2014) 1 SCC 87, and it was, in fact, the present respondent No. 2 who placed reliance upon the said judgment during the course of final arguments and the judgment in Ganesha (supra) is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case and, as per settled law, only an appeal would lie against an order of acquittal. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752 has categorically reiterated that an appeal and not a revision, is the proper remedy against an order of acquittal. The Court ought to have duly considered and applied the binding precedent of the Court in Dr. Pawan Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRR No. 1105/2018, relied upon by the present petitioner, wherein it has been clearly held that no revision lies against an order of acquittal and the same can only be challenged by way of an appeal and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, CRA No. 1852/2019 (decided on 06.12.2019) has held that High Courts possess ample power to recall their own orders to secure the ends of justice where the proceedings amount to abuse of the process of court and the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the law laid down in Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra) and Dr. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), thereby suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction from its very inception, as a criminal revision is not maintainable against an order of acquittal, which renders the impugned order void and without jurisdiction, as 5 held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 770, followed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey (supra), and therefore all the ingredients necessary for recall of the impugned order are clearly made out. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 strongly support the impugned order and submits that the a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed in CRR No. 542/2019, it is evident that the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused/respondent in the said revision petition. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the record of the concerned trial courts below and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties (including the petitioner’s counsel who was represented as respondent No. 2), in the said revision, exercised its revisional jurisdiction and passed the impugned order directing re-trial. This Court does not find any material on record to conclusively establish that the Co-ordinate Bench was misled or that the impugned order suffers from such 6 patent lack of jurisdiction or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Moreover, the present petition is barred under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. The scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is extremely limited and is to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not made out in the present case. Re-appreciation of the legality or correctness of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, under the guise of recall or modification, is impermissible in law. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. Consequently, interim orders if any, stands vacated. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal