ORDER Leave granted. Appellant filed a complaint against respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 and the Magistrate concerned issued process to R-2 and R-3 for certain offences. The said respondents challenged the said order of process before the High Court in revision. By order dated 24-9-1999, the High Court dismissed the said revision petition. 2. But it is seen from the impugned order that the High Court had recalled the order dated 24-4-1999 and stayed the trial. The impugned order was passed on 18-5-2000. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid course is not permissible due to the interdict contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Time and again, this Court said that such a course is not permissible in view of the prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recall was not made on the ground of any clerical or arithmetical error (Vide Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors.1. 5. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. In other words, the trial will now proceed. Appeal allowed. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Mangaram Varshneya v. State of U.P., 2001(5) Supreme 469 : 2001 (3) Crimes 418 00024