ANIL KUMAR KAUSHIK vs STATE OF U P AND ANR

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records.

The application under Section 482 No.25014/2016 was moved with prayer of quashing the proceedings of criminal complaint case no.7287/2014 Chandra Prakash Vashishth vs. Anil Kumar Kaushik under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. New Agra, pending in court of ACJM, Agra. After hearing counsel for applicant, following order dated 15.09.2016 had been passed by this Court at the time of disposal of said application under Section 482 CrPC: "After considering argument of counsel for the applicant, this application is disposed of with the observation that warrant issued against applicant in Complaint Case No.7287 of 2014, Chandra Prakash Vashisht Vs. Anil Kumar Kaushik under Section 138 of N.I. Act, police station - New Agra, District Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Agra is quashed with observation that applicant will appear within 15 days before the lower court. It is made clear that if he does not present himself on the date fixed before trial court then said court will be at liberty to pass any appropriate order."

Present recall application has been moved by applicant for recalling aforesaid order dated 15.09.2016.

Sri Yogendra Srivastava appearing on behalf of applicant contends that another counsel had appeared before this Court at the time of hearing of aforesaid application under Section 482 CrPC and probably he could not bpresent the relevant facts relating to application, therefore aforesaid order has been passed by this Court for quashing the warrant against applicant. He submits that if this order dated 15.09.2016 is recalled, then there is possibility that Court may consider the quashing of proceedings of aforesaid complaint case.

From perusal of aforesaid order, it is evident that at the time of hearing one Mr. Anuj Srivastava, Advocate was present on behalf of applicant. After affording opportunity of hearing to applicant''s side and his counsel above mentioned order has been passed by which some relief was granted to applicant, but relief of quashing the proceedings of complaint case under challenge was declined. Said order appears to have been passed after considering facts and circumstances of the matter as well as the submissions of counsel for the applicant, which is evident from the fact that some relief had been granted to applicant after the hearing. Said order was not passed erroneously or inadvertently. There appears no error or illegality in it. The applicant cannot be permitted to engage another counsel for getting same relief which has earlier been declined on merits after hearing another counsel. Change of counsel will not entitle a petitioner for a relief that has been declined earlier on merits after hearing the another counsel. Recall application cannot be permitted to be an application for review, revision or appeal in disguise.

Finding no satisfactory reason to recall above mentioned order, this recall application is rejected.