An order founded on an erroneous factual premise may be recalled when merits remain undecided.

Ganga Ram sought recall of the order dated 19 March 2026, which had disposed of his petition to quash an FIR under Sections 13(1)(B) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as withdrawn, with liberty to seek discharge before the trial court.

The earlier disposal proceeded on the stated premise that the trial court had taken cognizance. Ganga Ram contended that the trial court’s order-sheet disclosed no cognizance order against him; he also pointed to the stay of the prosecution sanction concerning a co-accused.

The Court found that the original petition had not been decided on its substantive merits.

Whether the order disposing of the quashing petition could be recalled where it rested on a factual premise—taking of cognizance against the petitioner—that the trial court’s record appeared not to support.

Whether the original petition should be restored for consideration on its merits when its substantive grounds had not previously been adjudicated.

The Court distinguished recall from review: review does not permit a fresh adjudication on the same material or substitution of one view for another after a matter has been decided on its merits.

Recall may, however, be appropriate where the substantive controversy was never adjudicated and the disposal rested on a factual premise shown by the contemporaneous judicial record to be erroneous.

The Court noted that the earlier order did not determine any substantive ground for quashing the FIR; it disposed of the petition because cognizance was said to have been taken.

The trial court’s order-sheet, placed before the Court with the recall application, appeared not to record cognizance against the petitioner. Because the asserted fact had been the basis for directing the petitioner to pursue discharge instead, allowing the disposal order to stand would deny consideration of the original grounds on a premise that did not exist.

The application therefore sought restoration for an initial merits determination, not review of a decision already made on the merits.

It directed that the petition be considered on its merits in accordance with law.