MANOJ KUMAR DASH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by M/S Wellshown Retail LLP represented through its 'Admin' Satish Jha for recall of the order dtd. 3/4/2023 passed in the above case. The original application under Sec. 482 of the CR.P.C., was filed by Manoj Kumar Dash and Pintu @ Golak Bihari Dixit with prayer to quash the proceedings in C.T. Case No. 5993 of 2021 of the Court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar corresponding to Capital P.S. Case No. 687 dtd. 29/10/2021 for the alleged commission of offence under Ss. 420/ 427/ 294/328/ 380/506/34 of IPC. Several grounds were urged to persuade this Court to exercise its power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. It would be apt to mention that the aforesaid case was initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by one Ashis Tiberwal who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in the CRLMC. During pendency of the case, a joint affidavit for compromise was filed by both parties stating that they have settled their dispute amicably and mutually and do not want to proceed further in the case. A deed of compromise signed by both parties was filed enclosing the terms of such compromise. This Court heard the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2 in person and being satisfied that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding, allowed the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR in the aforementioned case. Such order was passed on 3/4/2023. On 21/4/2023, the present I.A. was filed seeking recall of order dtd. 3/4/2023 on the ground that Opposite Party No.2 was never authorised by the complainant to act on its behalf as he had been terminated from service. He was also never authorised to compromise the dispute but acting behind the back of the company, he in connivance of the accused persons, managed to obtain the order of quashment of the FIR in question.

(2.) Written objection has been filed by the petitioners inter alia questioning the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the same has been filed by one Satish Jha, who was never a party in the original proceeding and secondly, the order so passed cannot be recalled in view of the bar under Sec. 362 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Heard Mr. C.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner of the instant I.A. and Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the original petitioners/accused persons.