Recall of quashing order treated as barred review where no clerical error or similar mistake was shown.

A High Court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to recall an earlier order quashing criminal proceedings unless a clerical error, omission, or similar mistake is shown. A request framed as recall will be treated as a review in substance, and review is barred in criminal proceedings under the Code. The earlier quashing order had been passed on merits after considering the material on record and the Tribunal's findings, including the view that continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process. Pending connected proceedings did not justify reopening the concluded order when no timely challenge had been pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could recall its earlier order quashing the criminal proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction, and whether any ground was made out for interference with that final order.

Analysis: The earlier order had been passed on merits after considering the Tribunal's findings and the material on record, on the view that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. In the present petition, no clerical error, omission, or similar mistake in the earlier order was shown. The court held that a request to recall the earlier order would, in substance, amount to a review, which is barred in criminal proceedings by the Code. The pendency of connected proceedings did not furnish a ground to reopen the concluded decision, especially when no timely challenge had been pursued against it.

Conclusion: The petition for recall was not maintainable and was rejected; the earlier quashing order was left undisturbed.

---