JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 1. Facts of the case are that a complaint for the offence under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1881') was filed by the respondent No.2. In the complaint, it was stated that the respondent No.2 is a registered company having its Head Office at Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur and grants industrial loans. 2. The petitioner, M/S Rivona Industries Ltd. is a registered company and the three other accused persons are its directors. A buy-back agreement was executed by the accused persons and they agreed to repay the amount. The accused-petitioner No-3 issued a cheque No. 010832 dated 03.08.03 of As. 8,75,000/- of Indusind Bank Ltd., Branch, S.V. Road, Bombay. The said cheque was presented by the complainant to its bankers, the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Tilak Marg for collection but the same was returned back without payment with the remark of 'insufficient fund'. A notice was sent by fax and registered AD post to the accused-petitioners requesting them to make payment of amount within fifteen days from receipt of the notice. The complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate after hearing the complainant took cognizance and against the order of taking cognizance, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.01.2007 as not maintainable. 3. Against the dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioners preferred writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SBCWP No. 583/2007. 4. At the time of hearing on behalf of petitioner nobody put in appearance and this Court vide order dated 13.02.2008 considering the averments made in the petition and after hearing learned Public Prosecutor observed that at the time of taking cognizance the Court has only to examine whether prima-facie case is made out against the accused or not, and in the instant case as prima facie case is made out against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, therefore, cognizance for the aforesaid offence has been taken against the accused-petitioners. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and order passed by the revisional Court was upheld.The accused-applicants (Petitioners) have filed the present application for recalling the order on the ground that the full Court of this High Court in the judgment of Habu v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in RLW 1987 P 69 has held that power vested under Section 482, Cr.PC. Inherent powers be exercised by the High Court for recalling the judgment in case hearing is not given to accused, principles of natural justice will apply. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since he was not present and was not heard, therefore, in view of ratio decided by full Bench of this Court, the order dated 13.02.2008 is required to be recalled. 5. Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State v. K.V. Rajendran & Ors., reported in (2008) 8, SCC P 673 . In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court while dealing with provisions of Section 482 and Section 362 has observed that permissibility of reopening of order passed on the Section 482, Cr.PC. petition finally decided at the instance of interlocutory applications, on grounds other than the ground of clerical or arithmetical mistake contemplated in Section 362, Cr.PC. held, is impermissible. It was also observed that the Court cannot give a co-by to statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the grab of inherent jurisdiction, power under Section 482 cannot be exercised to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits. 6. The Full Bench of this Court was of the view that where the petitioner was not heard, applying the principle of natural justice, the case should be recalled, whereas the Hon'ble the Supreme Court is of the considered view that if the case is decided on merits, the order cannot be reopened or altered. 7. However, in the interest of justice also, the liberty was given to petitioners at this stage to address the Court on merit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the buy-back agreement which was executed by the accused-petitioners, is not permissible under the Law. 7. However, in the interest of justice also, the liberty was given to petitioners at this stage to address the Court on merit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the buy-back agreement which was executed by the accused-petitioners, is not permissible under the Law. The crux of contention of the petitioners' Counsel is that since the agreement itself is null and void and pursuant to which the cheque which has been given and same has been dishonoured, no cognizance can be taken even where the cheque has been given by the accused and same was dishonoured. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the respective parties and also perused the judgments referred before me. Admittedly, the accused-petitioner No.3, issued a cheque No. 010832 dated 03.08.2003 of As. 8,75,000/- of Indusind Bank and same when presented for payment, was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund. The trial Court as well as revisional Court at the time of taking cognizance only have to examine as to whether prima facie case under Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act is made out or not. For other purposes, other requirements of provisions of Section 138 are complied by the complainant and the complainant after giving notice of fifteen days filed complaint against the accused-petitioners who failed to make payment in lieu of cheque in response to the notice. Thus, the complaint was filed and having considered overall facts and circumstances, the trial Court rightly took cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The revisional Court has rightly upheld the order passed by the trial Court and rightly rejected the revision petition. 9. In sum and substance, the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Habu (supra) is not applicable in the present case, as the petition was decided on merit, even in absence of the petitioners' Counsel and ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State v. K.V. Rajendran & Ors. (supra) is applicable in the instant case. I find no force in the application and consequently, application for recalling the order dated 13.02.2008 is hereby rejected.Application Dismissed. *******