Judgment : 1. This application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3-3-2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur, District Amravati in Criminal Revision Application No.58/2004. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The applicant herein is President of Rahamaniya Society, Achalpur having its registration No. F-174 (Amt.), registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The said Society runs Rahamaniya High School & Junior College, Achalpur and the non-applicant No.2 is Head Master of the said School and Junior College. 3. On 9-12-1998 students of the College and citizen of Achalpur have made complaint against the non-applicant No.2 and made several allegations and requested for action against non-applicant No.2. On 15-6-1999 on receipt of the aforesaid complaint the applicant issued notice to the non-applicant No.2. The non-applicant No.2 without replying the notice filed Summary Criminal Complaint against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. On 18-7-2000 the applicant appeared in the Court and moved an application for recalling the process. The Court below after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that no case under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 4. On 30-7-2004 the non-applicant No.2 challenged the order dated 5-5-2004 before the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur by filing revision. The applicant herein appeared before the concerned Court and filed his reply. On 3-3-2007 the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Achalpur below Exh.14 dated 5-5-2004 is set aside and Summary Criminal Complaint Case bearing No.3940/03 is restored on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur, this application is filed by the applicant. 5. Though this matter was listed time to time, none appeared for the applicant. On all occasions the Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 as well as APP for the non-applicant No.1 appeared. 6. The following points have been raised in this application by the applicant which reads thus – 1. Whether the applicant has authority to look after the affairs of the Society and to protect the interest of the Society i.e. Rahamaniya Society? 2. Whether the notice of Statement of allegations dated 15-6-1999 issued by the applicant to the non-applicant tantamount to defamation? 3. Whether the applicant has authority to look after the affairs of the Society and to protect the interest of the Society i.e. Rahamaniya Society? 2. Whether the notice of Statement of allegations dated 15-6-1999 issued by the applicant to the non-applicant tantamount to defamation? 3. Whether the notice of statement of allegations dated 15-6-1999 falls within the VIII exceptions of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1660? 4. Whether the notice of statement of allegation dated 15-6-1999 proves mens rea/intention of applicant? 5. Whether the process issued against the applicant by the Trial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside or the order of J.M.F.C., Achalpur dated 5-5-2004 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 270/99 requires to be confirmed? 6. Whether the judgment dated 3-3-2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur, is proper? 7. The learned Advocate appearing for the non-applicant No. 2 herein submitted that once the process is issued by the Magistrate, the Magistrate has no power to recall the order. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the various provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that the scheme provided in Court does not provide any provision for recalling the order issuing process. The learned Advocate appearing for the non-applicant No.2 invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Adalat Prasad .vs. Rooplal Jindal and others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 and submitted that once the process is issued there is no power conferred by the Court to recall the order issuing the process. The Court has no power to recall the process issued. The learned Advocate invited my attention to the paragraphs 3, 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment and submitted that it was impermissible for the Magistrate to recall the order in absence of any provision and the Court to recall the order of issuance of process. Therefore, the learned Advocate would submit that on this ground alone the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional Court is required to be confirmed. 8. The learned APP appearing for the State/non-applicant No.1 invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd., vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi and others reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1741 (S.C.). 8. The learned APP appearing for the State/non-applicant No.1 invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd., vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi and others reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1741 (S.C.). He invited my attention to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the said judgment and submitted that ‘there is no power to the Magistrate to recall the order issuing process.’ 9. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the non-applicant No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.1 is that once the order is passed by the Magistrate issuing the process there is no power the Magistrate to recall the said order. 10. I have heard the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 and also the learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State at length. I have also perused the judgments cited Supra and on careful perusal of the same, the point which is raised in this application is no more res integra and same is covered by the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Achalpur is placed on record by the applicant from pages 36 to 51. The operative order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class reads thus:- 12. The said order was challenged by the present non-applicant No.2 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur in paragraph 5 has referred to various pronouncements on the subject by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court and in paragraph 6 has discussed above of the point in issue and relying on the reported judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others reported in (2204) 7 SCC 338 cited Supra, allowed the revision thereby setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Achalpur below Exh.14 on 5-5-2004. 13. 13. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur, more particularly paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said judgment, it clearly appears that the revisional Court has considered almost all judgments cited by the respective parties and has reached to the definite conclusion in paragraph 6 that the Magistrate has no power to review its own order once the process is issued. On independent scrutiny and perusal of the judgment cited Supra and also perusal of the provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no power to the Magistrate to recall the order issuing the process. In short, the Magistrate cannot review its own order once the process is issued. Therefore, there is no substance in the application. Hence rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Criminal Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of dismissal of this Criminal Application. Therefore, in the result, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Achalpur dated 3-3-2007 in Criminal Revision Application No.58 of 2004 is confirmed. The Criminal Application is dismissed. “i) Application Ex. 14 filed by the accused for re-calling of process is hereby allowed. ii) Necessary order is passed below Ex.1.”