Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. Heard the earned Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties, this matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This application by the petitioners has been filed for quashing order dated 8.1.98 passed by ACJM, Sheikhpura in Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 by which he has recalled his earlier order dated 30.7.97. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this application are that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 jointly filed a complaint which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996, -before the Court of ACJM, Sheikhpura against the petitioners and some others alleging therein that the petitioners who held different posts in a company named as Memorial Finance and Investment (I) Ltd. called a meeting inviting general public canvassing and causing the public to believe that investment by general public in the aforesaid company would be paid with attractive interest and they would also be given facility of grant of loan. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 believing the petitioners opened daily account in the branch of the aforesaid company. The accounts were for a period of two years from 27.7.92 to 27.7.94 and 10.7.92 to 9.7.94 and both the complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 20.00 daily and in this way, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 deposited a total sum of Rs. 14,600.00 each. Further case of the complainants was that on maturity they were not paid either principal amount or interest and in this way they have been cheated by the petitioners (Annexure-1). 4. The case of the petitioners is that on an earlier occasion one Karuna Kumari had lodged a similar complaint against the petitioners and her complaint was numbered as Complaint Case No. 75 (C) of 1995 (Annexure-2) which was sent to local police for instituting a case and for investigation and Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95 was instituted. In that case the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail (Annexure-3). In that case the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail (Annexure-3). Another case of the similar nature was also filed by one Yantri Yadav against the petitioners and all those others who are accused in Sheikhpura P.S. No. 216/95 and this complaint by Yantri Yadav was numbered as Complaint Case No. 144 (C)/96 and learned ACJM, Sheikhpura by his order dated 28.10.96 has been pleased to stay the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 144 (C)/96 and this case has been tagged with the record of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95 (Annexure-4). According to the petitioners, in his order dated 30.7.97 the learned ACJM has observed that the matter involved in the Complaint Case No. 165 (C)1 96 is of the same nature as that of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95 in which another Complaint Case No. 144 (C)/96 has already been amalgamated and with this observation he passed an order that final order in Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 will be passed after receipt of final form in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/ 95 but thereafter by the impugned order he recalled this order. The grievance of the petitioners is that once order dated 30.7.97 has already been passed by the ACJM, he could not have recalled this order subsequently by the impugned order which is not permissible under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C). 5. Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has opposed the prayer of petitioners on the ground that the order dated 30.7.97 passed by the learned ACJM, Sheikhpura was neither a judgment nor an order disposing of the case and therefore, provisions of Sec. 362, Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that by order dated 30.7.97, the learned ACJM, Sheikhpura had amalgamated Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95 he could not have recalled this order subsequently separating both the cases. This submission does not appear to be correct because the order dated 30.7.97 passed by the learned ACJM, does not show that he had amalgamated Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216 of 1995. This submission does not appear to be correct because the order dated 30.7.97 passed by the learned ACJM, does not show that he had amalgamated Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216 of 1995. He had simply passed order dated 30.7.97 that because the matter involved in Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 is of the same nature as that of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95 so final order in Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 would be passed after receitp of final form in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95. By the impugned order he after hearing the fearned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has observed that because the order, dated 30.7.97 was passed on the basis of confused submission made by the lawyer of petitioners who had no locus standi because Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 was in enquiry stage and order of cognizance had yet to be passed and he ordered for separating both cases from each other and fixed another date for passing order in inquiry matter. Although the impugned order shows that both the cases have been separated whereas the fact is that these two cases were never amalgamated with each other by earlier order dated 30.7.97 passed by the learned ACJM, Sheikhpura. 7. Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relying on decisions in the cases of Bindeshwari Pd. Singh V/s. Kali Singh -- , State of Orissa V/s. Ram Chander Agarwala AIR 1977 SC 87, Rikhab Chand Jain V/s. The State 1979 PLJR 9, and Smt. Sooraj Devi V/s. Pyare Lal and Anr. -- has further submitted that the learned ACJM, Sheikhpura has committed an illegality by passing the impugned order by which he recalled his earlier order. 8. In my opinion, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case because all these decisions are in respect of either the judgment or order finally disposing of a case. In the present case, by the earlier order dated 30.7.97 passed by the learned ACJM be has neither passed any judgment nor an order finally disposing of Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996. In the present case, by the earlier order dated 30.7.97 passed by the learned ACJM be has neither passed any judgment nor an order finally disposing of Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996. By his order, he has simply observed that final order in Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 would be passed after receipt of final form in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 216/95. He has not become functus officio in Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 by passing order dated 30.7.97. I therefore, find that the present case is not hit by Sec. 362 of Cr.P.C. 9. On the point of submission of earned Counsel for the petitioners that another case bearing Complaint Case No. 144 (C) of 1996 had already been amalgamated with Sheikhpura PS Case No. 216/95, therefore, the learned ACJM should have also allowed the amalgamation of Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 1996 with Sheikhpura PS Case No. 216/95 and should not have passed different order by the impungned order allowing both the cases to run separately, it requires no adjudication because that is not an issue in this application which has been filed challenging the correctness of impugned order by which the earlier order dated 30.7.97 has been recalled. 10. Considering the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in this application. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.