ORDER
P.C. Agarwal, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the order dated 8-7-2002 in Criminal Revision No. 361/2000 (Shafique alias Shafaq v. State of M.P.), whereby the revision was allowed and Shafique alias Shafaq (R1) was discharged. The petitioner in this case is the prosecutrix, who had filed F.I.R. in the case and she claims that she was a necessary party in the revision and no order could have been passed unless she was noticed and heard.
2. Facts in brief are that on F.I.R. of the petitioner, after due investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the Police Crime No. 95/99. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court discharged Shafique alias Shafaq (R1) on 24-3-2000. Thereafter the statement of the petitioner on oath was recorded. The prosecution applied Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling Shafique alias Shafaq (R1) to face his trial under Section 309 of the Code. The Sessions Court allowed the application and recalled Shafique alias Shafaq (R1). On revision by Shafique alias Shafaq (R1), in which the petitioner as prosecutrix was not made as party, this Court by its earlier order dated 9-7-2002 finding the case squarely covered by Sohanlal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2158 : (1990 Cri LJ 2302) allowed the revision and discharged Shafique alias Shafaq (R1). Certainly, no notice was given to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has claimed that she being the prosecutrix was certainly entitled to be heard before revision of Shafique alias Shafiq (R-1) was allowed and he was discharged by this Court. She claims that she is not only a necessary party in such revision but is entitled to a notice also. She has placed reliance on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1985 Cri LJ 1521 : AIR 1985 SC 1285 wherein the Supreme Court had directed that Magistrate should give notice and hear the informant if he decides not to take cognizance of the offence or drop proceedings against some persons mentioned in FIR Under Section 173 of the Cr. P. C. This direction of the Supreme Court was relied upon and confirmed in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah, 1997 Cri LJ 4636 : (AIR 1997 SC 3876) an order whereby Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by investigating agency under Section 173 and dropped the proceedings without giving notice to the informant. The order was held illegal. Certainly, the situation is different in the present case. Here question involved is whether the complainant-prosecutrix is a necessary party in a revision filed by the accused of the case.
4. Similarly in J. K. International v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2001 Cri LR (SC) 243 : (2001 Cri LJ 1264) the Apex Court permitted the complainant to be heard when criminal proceedings were sought to be quashed. In this case, the complainant had applied for being impleaded in the proceedings started by accused for quashing the criminal proceedings. The single Judge of High Court had dismissed such request with the following observations from Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 : (1966 Cri LJ 700) (Para 9) : (2001 Cri LJ 1264 Paras 6 and 8):
'In a case which has proceeded on a police report, a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt the terms of Section 435 (old Cr. P. C.) are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wreaking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party has caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions in criminal matters, the party who is sued as aggrieved party in the State which is the custodian of the social interest of community at large and so it is for the State to take all steps necessary for preventing person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book.....'
The Apex Court observed in Para 8 :
'8. ..........The situation here is different, as the accused approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant. It may not be that the complainant should have been made a party by the accused himself in the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings, as the accused has no such obligation when the case was charge-sheeted by the police. It is, predominantly the concern, of the State to continue the prosecution. But when the complainant wishes to be heard when the criminal proceedings are sought to be quashed, it would be a negation of justice to him if he is foreclosed from being heard even after he makes a request to the Court in that behalf. What is the advantage of the Court in telling him that he would not be heard at all even at the risk of the criminal proceedings initiated by him being quashed. It is no solace to him to be told that if the criminal proceedings are quashed he may, have the right to challenge it before the higher forums.'
5. The Apex Court after examining the frame and scheme of the Cr. P. C. held that the learned Single Judge had been wrong in not allowing the appellant a hearing. However, even then it was not held that the prosecutrix or complainant is a necessary party to every revision or appeal filed by the accused. Thus, the petitioner/prosecutrix was not a necessary party to the revision filed by Shafique alias Shafique (R-1). She had not approached this Court of her own and claimed that she wanted to be heard before any final order was given by the Court as was the case in J. K. International's case (2001 Cri LJ 1264) (SC) (supra). She has approached this Court after this Court has passed final orders in the revision.
6. Certainly, this Court has no jurisdiction to alter or review the judgment or final order passed by it, disposing of a case when it has been signed except to correct clerical Or arithmetical errors therein (See Section 362 of Cr. P. C.).
7. Certainly, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the land, his position is different. The Same has the power to review its own orders or judgment. A.R. Antullay v. R.S. Naik, AIR 1988 SC 1531 : (1988 Cri LJ 1661). Such powers are exercised under Articles 132, 136 or 137 or other provisions, of the Constitution. True it is that in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 23, a single Judge of Bombay High Court had held that the High Court can review or revise its judgment if such judgment is pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party who is entitled to hearing and that party is not at fault. For the mistake of the Court, a party cannot suffer.
8. It is true that in some eases attempt to distinguish between recalling of an order and reviewing the same has been emphasized. Girdharilal v. Pratap Rai Mehta, 1989 Cri LJ 2382 (Kant); Habu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj 83 (FB). In case when an order is passed without proper service of notice on opposite party quashing of order is possible, Chhabilal v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 Crimes 414 (Raj) or where Advocate had no notice for the case being posted for hearing Kashinath v. State of Bihar, (1989) 2 Crimes 421 (Pat) or where it is passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the party entitled to be heard, Deepak Thamardas Golwani v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 23 (Bom). If the judgment is a nullity then also review is possible. Prem Singh v. State, 1982 Cri LJ 297 : (AIR 1982 NOC 141) (J and K) (FB).
9. Otherwise by long catena of judgments of Apex Court it has become well settled that the High Court has no power to review its own orders. State of Orissa v. Ramchandra Agrawal, AIR 1979 SC 87; (1979 Cri LJ 33). Sooraj Devi v. Pyarelal, AIR 1981 SC 736) : (1981 Cri LJ 296). UJS Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633 : (1955 Cri LJ 1410). R. Sarla v. T.S. Velu, AIR 2000 SC 1731 : (2000 Cri LJ 2453). Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, AIR 2001 SC 43 .: (2001 Cri Lj 128). State of Kerala v. M. M. Manikantam Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145 : (2001 Cri LJ 2346). State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharan Das Chadda, AIR 1979 SC 1895 : (1979 Cri LJ 1416). Mst. Simrikhiya v. Dolly Mukherjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605 : (1990 Cri LJ 1599). Motilal v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1544 : (1994 Cri LJ 1633). State of Karnataka v. T. R. Dhananjay, (1995) 6 SCC 254.
10. Certainly, the order in Cr. R. 361,/ 00 was entirely based on Sohanlal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2158 ; (1990 Cri LJ 2302). In the present case Shafique alias Shafique was charge-sheeted by the Police who was discharged by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter the statement of the petitioner prosecutrix was recorded and then the name of Shafique alias Shafaq (R-1) was added on an application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. Such a case is distinguishable from Rakesh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 3 Crimes 330 : (2001 Cri LJ 3511) (SC) wherein names of two accused were dropped by the Police and no charge-sheet was filed. Names of these persons were added after statement of prosecutrix was recorded. Such an addition was held lawful. It is noteworthy that these two accused had not been discharged by the Court of Session, Order of discharge was not in the way of the Court below in proceeding against these two accused. Certainly, if the petitioner/prosecutrix or the prosecution was dissatisfied by the order of discharge of Shafiq alias Shafaq, a revision could be filed.
11. Certainly, powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice and not to merely satisfy the vengeance of a party. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not been able to show any inherent weakness or lack of Jurisdiction in the final order passed in Criminal Revision. Had the petitioner been a party to the Criminal Revision and heard also then also the revision had to be allowed as the case was squarely covered by a Supreme Court judgment. As such the order was neither unjust, unfair nor did it tantamount to abuse of process of Court.
12. There has been no provision in Cr. P. C. whereunder complainant or prosecutrix should also be added as a party in revision for quashing any proceedings against the accused. Shafiq alias Shafaq (R-1) had not been at fault in not impleading the petitioner in his revision. Under the Code no notice was necessary to be issued to the petitioner suo motu by the Court. The ruling in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1985 Cri LJ 1521 (SC) (supra) dealt with a specific situation of its own and could not be made a general rule to be applied in every case where the interest of a complainant or prosecutrix were going to be affected.
13. Thus, there has been no force or substance in the petition. The same is dismissed.