High Court cannot review or recall a final order of dismissal on withdrawal due to the bar under Section 362 CrPC.

The Petitioner, Motiur Rahman Laskar, originally filed Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 challenging orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, regarding the custody (zimma) of an elephant and its calf.

Simultaneously, Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/2017 was pending regarding the same cause of action.

On 01.12.2022, the Petitioner’s engaged counsel, Mr. R. Dhar, withdrew Criminal Petition No. 461/2017, leading to its dismissal.

The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to restore the dismissed petition, claiming the withdrawal was made without his knowledge due to a "communication gap" caused by his prolonged illness and surgery.

1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to recall, modify, or cancel its own final order of dismissal passed on withdrawal.

2. Whether the bar under Section 362 of the CrPC applies to a petition seeking the restoration of a criminal matter dismissed as withdrawn.

The Court primarily applied Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which prohibits a court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

The Court relied on the precedent of R. Rajeshwari v. H.N. Jagadish (2008), which established that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the specific bar of review under Section 362, unless the judgment was obtained by practicing fraud upon the court.

It further cited Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (2001), clarifying that once a matter is finally disposed of, the court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain miscellaneous petitions for the same relief.

The Court examined the Petitioner’s claim that the withdrawal of the original petition was a "bonafide mistake" resulting from a lack of communication between the client and the advocate.

However, the Court noted that the Petitioner did not allege that the counsel lacked the authority to withdraw the case, nor was there any allegation of fraud.

Applying the "strict bar" of Section 362 CrPC, the Court reasoned that the order dated 01.12.2022 was a final order disposing of the case.

Since the High Court becomes functus officio the moment an official order of disposal is signed, it lacks the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to review or restore a case regardless of the perceived prejudice to the Petitioner.

The Court determined that the grounds provided (illness and miscommunication) did not fall under the narrow exceptions of clerical or arithmetical error.

The Court concluded it had no jurisdiction to restore Criminal Petition No. 461/2017 to the file.

Consequently, the petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed as devoid of merit.