- (1.) S. H. A. Raza and V. K. Chaturvedi, JJ. The applicant Ghufran Ahmad has filed his petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that the order dated 6-2-97 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh arising out of Criminal Ap plication No. 33 of 1997 be quashed. It is further prayed that operation of the order dated 6-2-9'7 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh arising out of criminal Application No. 33 of 1997, Hafizurrehmaan v. Ghufraan Ahmad and other, be stayed.
(2.) THE applicant has arrayed two per sons as opposite parties namely Ram Raj Tiwari, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azam garh as well as Hafizurrehman son of Junaid. THE order which was sought to be quashed, was passed by the C. J. M. on an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. THE C. J. M. ordered the police to investigate the mat ter. Being aggrieved against the said order, an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was filed by the applicant. On 21-3-97, the following order was passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court: "heard. Duly considered the submissions. Since the entire money has been paid and obtained by the complainant, as per Annexure-5, the petition is finally disposed of as under: THE order dated 6-2-97 passed by the C. J. M. Azamgarh arising out of criminal application No. 33/97 stands quashed. " After the said order was pronounced and signed by the Court, an application was preferred by opposite party No. 3 Hafizurrehman stating that during execution proceedings, the State Government deposited a sum of Rs. 17. 13 lacs, out of which the applicant and Smt. Khudaija Bibi had their share to the tune of Rs. 5,71,000. After deposit of the award by the State of U. P. , Ghufraan Ahmad, who was appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, made an application as Counsel before the executing Court on 4-5- 95 on behalf of the applicant with the prayer that docu ments for payment of the compensation of the applicant and Smt. Khudaija Bibi be prepared in the name of Ghufraan Ahmad and to pay the same to Ghufraan Ahmad. After a report of the Nazir was obtained, the Court ordered to make a request to the District Judge for preparation of voucher in the name of the applicant, but the records shows that the name of the applicant was replaced by the name of Ghufnian Ahmad, Advocate. It was also averred in the said application which was supported by an affidavit that the cutting portion of the order did not contain initial of the Presiding Officer. On the basis of the said order, Ghufraan Ahmad, Advocate received the said voucher and deposited the same in his personal account No. P/287 in State Bank of India and according to the applicant, the said amount was not paid to them. Thereafter, they applied for execu tion of the award. The executing proceed ings are still pending. It is further sub mitted that the said order was passed by the C. J. M. under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. which was quashed by the Court on 21-3-97 without issuing any notice to respon dent No. 3, and hence the said order dated 21-3-97 be recalled. The Court accordingly recalled the order on 13-4-97 and ordered for listing of the case before the ap propriate bench in the next supplementary cause list. The said order dated 13-4-97 recalling the order dated 21-3-97 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge was assailed before this Court and it was submitted that under Section 362, Cr. P. C the Court was not vested with the power to review or alter its final judgment. No doubt, a criminal Court was not vested with the power to recall, review or alter its judgment once signed and pronounced, but at the same time the power of the criminal Court cannot be equated with the power of the High Court envisaged under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which vests this Court a power to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that if the Court has com mitted any mistake inadvertently which has resulted into miscarriage of justice, the High Court has inherent power to correct the mistake or recall its earlier order if the mistake is as such which glares at the face of the Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Single Judge without issuing notice to the respondents, could not have passed an order quashing the order passed by the C. J. M. But as soon as the attention of the Court was drawn towards that fact, the Court realising its mistake recalled the order which was passed inadvertently. If the order would not have been recalled, the illegality would have been allowed to perpetuate causing irreparable loss and injury to the respon dents. Section 482, Cr. P. C. confers a power on the High Court to pass such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise e to secure the ends of justice. Section 362, Cr. P. C. is not applicable in the instant case inasmuch as the judgment and order has not been altered by the Court but it was only recalled and the petition will be heard and disposed on its merits.
(3.) IN view of the fact that pursuant to the order passed by the C. J. M. Azamgarh under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C, first infor mation report has been registered, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has lost its efficacy and relevance. It is accord ingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;