1. Heard the parties.

2. The record is placed before the bench as an objection has been raised by the stamp reporter regarding the maintainability of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. or in alternative Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the company M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. with the prayer to recall the judgment and order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1517 of 2025 between Aspire Techno Engineers -Petitioner vs. The State of Jharkhand and the informant-cum- the petitioner who filed protest-cum-complaint case namely Tarun Kanti Ghosh in which the protest-cum-complaint case was numbered as Protest- cum-Complaint Case No. 2203 of 2021.

4. In Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025, this Court issued notice to the informant-complainant of the said Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 2203 of 2021 who was the opposite party no.2 of the said Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025. Though notice was validly served upon the said opposite party no.2-Tarun Kanti Ghosh but no one turned up on behalf of the said opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls at the time of hearing. The matter was heard on 03.11.2025 and on the same day after hearing the petitioners of that case and learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State in that case, this Court allowed the said criminal miscellaneous petition and the entire criminal proceeding in relation to Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 2203 of 2021 along with order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur was quashed and set aside.

5. This petition has been filed by a third party with the prayer to recall the said judgment and order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1517 of 2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. Etc. reported in [2011] 15 (Addl.) SCR 540 and submits that though in that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the High Court when an order is passed cannot review the same after signing the same and in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., the Court become functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law and has also held that the Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed but in paragraph no.27 of that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed when the power to recall can be exercised and the same are:- (i) when the judgment is pronounced without jurisdiction, (ii) when the judgment has been pronounced in violation of principle of natural justice, (iii) when the judgment has been pronounced without giving any opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or (iv) when the judgment is passed when an order is obtained by an abuse of process of law which would really amount its being without jurisdiction; inherent power can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. would not operate.

7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner namely the company M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. who in this case is also represented through its director Tarun Kanti Ghosh who was the opposite party no.2 of the said Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025 is the affected party and as M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. has not been served with any notice, hence, it is submitted that the said judgment and order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025 has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. Hence, this is a fit case where this Court has the jurisdiction to recall the said order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in [2008] 4 SCR 701 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.44 has observed that no judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results in drastic consequences of affecting one’s own reputation and submits that M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. has been affected by the said judgment and order dated 03.11.2025 by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025 therefore, on this score also, this Court can recall the said order. Hence, it is submitted that the objection raised by the stamp reporter be overruled.

8. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the same person namely Tarun Kanti Ghosh who was the opposite party no.2 Of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1517 of 2025 did not participate in that proceeding and as orders against him was passed he has come to this Court by wearing another hat by representing himself to be person authorized by M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. and is contending that since M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. has not been served with notice or given any opportunity of being heard; even though the undisputed fact remains that the informant of Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No. 34 of 2021 was no one else than the said Tarun Kanti Ghosh who in his individual capacity filed the protest-cum-complaint case as Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 2203 of 2021 and he has received the notice of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1517 of 2025. It is then submitted that this conduct of the petitioner goes to show that this is only an effort to abuse the process of the Court by adopting a camouflage tactic, urging upon the Court to exercise the power to review which the Court does not have once it has become functus officio in respect of the judgment passed by it. It is lastly submitted that thus this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to recall the final order passed by this Court dated 03.11.2025 in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025 is not maintainable; as the same will amount to review the order passed by this Court dated 03.11.2025 in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025, therefore, the stamp reporter has rightly raised objection that this petition is not maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that this petition be dismissed at this stage itself being not maintainable.

9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nazma v. Javed @ Anjum reported in (2013) 1 SCC 376, paragraph nos.11 and 12 of which reads as under:-

                  “11. The practice of entertaining miscellaneous applications in disposed of writ petitions was deprecated by this Court in Hari Singh Mann [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] . Reference to the following paragraph of that judgment is apposite: (SCC p. 173, para 8)

                  “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 the 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 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.”

                  We are sorry to note that in spite of the clear pronouncement of law by this Court, still, the High Courts are passing similar orders, which practice has to be deprecated in the strongest terms. Of late, we notice that the High Courts are entertaining writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, so also under Section 482 CrPC and passing and interfering with various orders granting or rejecting request for bail, which is the function of ordinary criminal court. The jurisdiction vested on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as well as Section 482 CrPC are all exceptional in nature and to be used in most exceptional cases. The jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is also discretionary and it is required to be exercised with great care and caution.

                  12. We are of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in not only entertaining the criminal miscellaneous application in a disposed of writ petition, but also passing an order not to arrest the first respondent till the conclusion of the trial. Grant of bail or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular criminal courts and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, is not justified in usurping their powers. Once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors. In the instant case, the High Court has entertained a petition in a disposed of criminal writ petition and granted reliefs, which is impermissible in law.”

                  has in no uncertain manner held that the High Court cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications of the order after disposal except for carrying out the typographical and clerical error and the same is the principle applicable to the orders in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Otherwise also, it is a settled principle of law that notice to an agent is undisputedly notice to a member. The company does not have any hands or legs. It is represented by its authorized signatory. Now Tarun Kanti Ghosh has come to Court representing M/s Sai Resources Private Ltd. Tarun Kanti Ghosh was already noticed in Cr.M.P. No.1517 of 2025 but he chose not to appear in that case.

                  The undisputed fact remains that Tarun Kanti Ghosh in his individual capacity was the informant of the case and after submission of final report also filed the protest-cum-complaint petition; the entire proceeding of which were quashed and set aside by this Court vide the judgment dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025.

10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no force in the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was aggrieved party and who was not given the opportunity of being heard in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025 and as this Court has already become functus officio in respect of the judgment dated 03.11.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2025, this Court has no hesitation in holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to recall its own order passed in that case on the grounds raised in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

11. Accordingly, the objections raised by the stamp reporter is sustained and this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being not maintainable.