Natural justice in criminal quashing proceedings requires hearing the complainant before any order that may prejudice the charge.

Section 362 CrPC bars review or alteration of a criminal order, but the text explains that recall may still be competent where the earlier order is treated as a nullity for want of hearing to a necessary affected party. In a quashing proceeding, the complainant is entitled to be heard if the order may prejudice the complaint or charge. Applying audi alteram partem, an order passed without impleading or hearing such a complainant is described as void in law, and the petition is to be reheard afresh after notice to her.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be recalled in view of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the complainant was entitled to be heard before the petition for quashing of charge was decided, and whether non-impleadment vitiated the order.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be recalled in view of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 362 bars alteration or review of a criminal judgment or order except to correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes, and the general rule is that the Court becomes functus officio after disposal of the petition. However, the impugned order was not being reopened on the merits as a review. The recalled order had been passed without hearing a party who was required to be heard, and the correction was sought on that foundational defect. The Court treated this as an exercise of jurisdiction to set right a nullity arising from denial of hearing, rather than as a barred review under Section 362.

Conclusion: The recall was not barred by Section 362 and was competent.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant was entitled to be heard before the petition for quashing of charge was decided, and whether non-impleadment vitiated the order.

Analysis: In a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings or charge, the complainant has a right to be heard where the order may adversely affect her interests. The principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply, and an order passed without hearing such a necessary affected party is void in law. The Court held that the complainant was not a mere formal or unnecessary party, because the quashing order directly prejudiced the charge arising from her complaint. Denial of hearing therefore vitiated the earlier order.

Conclusion: The complainant was entitled to be heard, and the order passed without impleading and hearing her was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was recalled, and the quashing petition was directed to be reheard afresh after impleading and hearing the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed in a criminal quashing proceeding without hearing a necessary affected complainant is void for breach of natural justice, and such an order may be recalled notwithstanding the bar against review under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---