A merits-based order will not be recalled absent cogent grounds justifying recall.

Pico Capital, the original complainant, filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi had induced it to advance an inter-corporate deposit of ₹150 lakh to Swajay Finance Private Limited, with personal repayment assurances and a pledge of shares as security.

After process was issued, Chaturvedi challenged that order by writ petition.

On 18 September 2025, the High Court quashed the process order after considering the merits; Pico Capital later sought recall, claiming that a change of advocate and the absence of effective representation had deprived it of an opportunity to be heard.

Chaturvedi opposed recall, relying, among other grounds, on the bar in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the delay in filing the application.

1. Whether the High Court should recall its order quashing the process order where the applicant claimed it lacked effective representation when the matter was heard.

2. Whether the circumstances shown by the applicant constituted a cogent reason to recall an order passed after consideration of the merits.

The impugned order arose from a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which the Court said it had considered in assessing the complaint and the process order.

The respondent invoked Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which restricts a criminal court’s ability to alter or review a final order, subject to correction of clerical or arithmetical errors; however, the Court did not expressly decide the application on that statutory ground.

The Court’s stated basis for dismissal was that the order sought to be recalled had been decided on the merits and that no cogent reason or infirmity justifying recall had been shown.

The Court examined the earlier order and found that it had addressed the complaint’s averments, the documents on record, and the applicable provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

It also considered the applicant’s absence at the hearing and its explanation concerning the change of advocate.

The Court noted that the applicant had sought adjournments on three occasions, while acknowledging that some later adjournments were due to court time constraints or joint requests.

It nevertheless found no infirmity in the merits-based order and no cogent ground warranting recall.

It dismissed Interim Application No. 2891 of 2026.