Judgment Partha Sakha Datta, J. The two petitioners who are accused persons in connection with a Criminal Case being G.R. No. 61 of 2007 arising out of Tala P.S. Case No. 05 dated January 10, 2007 under section 403/420/406/120B/34 IPC challenge in this application under section 482 read with section 483 of the Cr. PC the order dated 13th May, 2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate in super-session of his earlier order dated 22nd February, 2007 whereby he accepted the FRT submitted by the I.O. decided to reopen the matter. 2. The facts are these: The complainant is a resident of USA and when he comes to India he stays at various places including the Premises No.109, Indra Biswas Road, Calcutta - 37 which is his ancestral house. He moved an application under section 156(3) Cr. PC before the learned A.C.J.M., Sealdah alleging that the two petitioners committed offence under section 403/420/406/120B/34 IPC in respect of the properties of the said complainant. The application was sent to the police for investigation and the police registered the aforesaid case and carried out investigation but upon investigation the police on or about 8th of September, 2007 submitted a report in final form praying for discharge of the accused persons on the ground that no prima facie case was made out. Upon receipt of the final report the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner who according to the petitioner is a resident of USA as the same would be evident from the fact that I.O. earlier by two letters dated 25th of April, 2007 and 2nd of June, 2007 sent a questionnaire to the petitioner at USA and the petitioner dispatched a reply by courier on 2nd July, 2007. Kamal Krishna Pathak is a holder of the power-of-attorney in the matter of lodgement of the case. The purported notice to the complainant consequent upon submission of final report was really not sent to the petitioner nor was it sent to Kamal Krishna Pathak who was residing in Kolkata. On the other hand the O.C., Tala P.S. and I.O., it is alleged, in collusion and in connivance with the two petitioners with the objective of having the two accused persons discharged from the case sent the notice to the complainant at 109, Indra Biswas Road, Kolkata - 37 to prevent the petitioner from being fairly represented. On the other hand the O.C., Tala P.S. and I.O., it is alleged, in collusion and in connivance with the two petitioners with the objective of having the two accused persons discharged from the case sent the notice to the complainant at 109, Indra Biswas Road, Kolkata - 37 to prevent the petitioner from being fairly represented. The notice was served upon one Smt. Rina Mondal alleged to be a caretaker of the Premises No. 109, Indra Biswas Road, but the said lady was neither appointed by the petitioner to be her authorized agent nor was she really a caretaker of the premises and having got a signature from one Smt. Rina Mondal in the acknowledgement, the learned Magistrate was represented that notice had been served upon the petitioner, and since the petitioner did not appear despite alleged service of the said notice the learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons upon acceptance of the FRT. Therefore, it was prayed before the learned Magistrate by the petitioner that he be heard as fraud was practiced upon the Court in the matter of alleged service of notice upon the complainant. Prayer was made further for an order that the order of discharge dated 13th November, 2007 was a nullity and the same be revoked. 3. The learned A.C.J.M., Sealdah heard the accused persons as also the complainant and observed that when fraud has been alleged to had been practised it was proper that the complainant should appear before him on 13th November, 2007 for the purpose of hearing of the matter. Before the learned Magistrate the complainant totally denied about appointment of any such person namely Smt. Rina Mondal as caretaker. The learned Magistrate further observed that Smt. Rina Mondal and the process server who submitted the report on 6th of October, 2007 are required to be examined and cross-examined so as to determine whether there was at all any caretaker in the name of Smt. Rina Mondal and whether she was authorized to accept the notice. Accordingly, learned Magistrate fixed 11th of June, 2008 for evidence. 4. Accordingly, learned Magistrate fixed 11th of June, 2008 for evidence. 4. This order of the learned A.C.J.M. Sealdah dated 13th May, 2008 has been challenged by the two petitioners who are the accused persons in the said case on the ground that once the learned Magistrate accepted the final report and discharged the accused persons he was not empowered under the law to review the matter again as it is totally barred under section, 362 of the Cr. P.C. The further grounds are that notice was sent to the de facto complainant at 109 Indra Biswas Road, Kolkata as it was one of his addresses and the said address being given in the petition of complaint it is improper to presume that notice was really suppressed from being served upon the petitioner. 5. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted at the outset that in the petition of complaint the petitioner put his address as 109, Indra Biswas Road, Kolkata and it is the said address whereupon notice was served and the mere fact that Smt. Rina Mondal accepted the notice does not signify that it was a fictitious service. Rina Mondal having been found in the premises as a caretaker of the house and she having claimed the notice on behalf of complainant/petitioner it cannot be said by any amount of reasoning that fraud has been practised upon the complainant. It is submitted that the order of recalling the order of discharge is itself unlawful because the application for recalling the order of discharge has not been made by the complainant but by Kamal Krishan Pathak, alleged' holder of power of attorney, at no point of time the complainant had expressed his own interest in the matter of pursuing the case. The alleged power-of-attorney holder is not authorized to say and plead that Smt. Rina Mondal does not reside at the premises because the said Kamal Krishna Pathak is not a resident of 109, Indra Biswas Road, Kolkata and he has not disclosed how he came to allege that Smt. Rina Mondal did not reside in the premises or that she was a fictitious person or that she was not authorized to receive the notice. It has been submitted by Mr. It has been submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that the jurisdiction and authority of a holder of a power-of-attorney does not extend to anything and everything which does not strictly come in terms of the power-of-attorney executed by the principal. Mr. Bandyopadhyay submits that the learned Magistrate was without any jurisdiction to seek for external evidence in the search of his quest whether fraud was practiced by the I.O. or the O.C. in connivance with the accused persons or not. If elements of fraud could not be deciphered within the four corners of the judicial record containing documents and papers the learned Magistrate is not legally obligated upon to seek for evidence externally so as to have the petitioner's case substantiated. Since the learned Magistrate did not specifically direct at what address the notice would be required to be served the police authority was well within their jurisdiction to serve the notice in one of the addresses of the petitioner which is located at 109, Indra Biswas Road, Kolkata. Once the learned Magistrate was satisfied with the service of notice and upon such satisfaction FRT was accepted and accused persons, consequently were discharged such satisfaction cannot be reversed by non-satisfaction so as to launch an enquiry merely at the .asking of the complainant who would merrily reside in USA keeping a so-called power of attorney holder who in the petition for recalling of the order of discharge did not disclose as to under what authority he could level the allegation against the accused persons that they allegedly connived with the police personnel in the matter of service of notice upon Smt. Rina Mondal and who did not disclose in the petition as to how he could be able to derive a knowledge that Rina Mondal was not authorized to accept the notice or that notice was not at all served upon Rina Mondal. Since the petition was not supported by any affidavit of Smt. Rina Mondal that no police personnel ever met her by tendering the notice or that she did not reside in the cited address the learned Magistrate ought not to have reopened the matter which he is not legally empowered to do in view of the provision contained in section 362 of the Cr. P.C. Mr. P.C. Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted that there was no irregularity in the service of notice and in the seizure list de facto-complainant had furnished the same Kolkata address. At no point of time the de facto-complainant came before the learned Magistrate to tell that he did not have the Kolkata address any more or that no notice or correspondences should be sent in his name to the cited Kolkata address. Since Smt. Rita Mondal actually received the notice it will not be possible for anyone else to disprove the same. The learned Magistrate became a functus officio once the order of discharge was passed and in this connection a decision in State of Kerala vs. M.M. Manikantan, 2001 SCC (Cri) 808 has been cited. My attention has been drawn to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Harjeet Singh vs. State of West Bengal, 2005(1) C. Cr. LR (Cal) 598 wherein this Court held that section 362 of the Code gives a complete bar to any Court including the High Court to either review or recall an order or judgment passed even if it is found subsequently that had offended the principles of natural justice. Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted that the principle enunciated in section 362 Cr. P.C. operates even in a case of alleged fraud. At the last leg of argument Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted that the application for recalling is not supported by a verification or an affirmation and the same cannot be relied upon. 6. Mr. Sudipta Maitra, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that it is fallacious to argue that in the complete derogation of the principle laid down in section 362 Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned. By the order impugned the earlier order of discharge dated 13.11.2007 has not yet been modified, annulled or recalled. Learned Magistrate's attention was drawn to the fact that neither the complainant who resides in USA nor his constituted power-of-attorney Kamal Krishna Pathak was ever in the knowledge of the fact that the police submitted FRT, that learned Magistrate directed issuance of notice upon the complainant that one lady Smt. Rina Mondal purportedly accepted the notice and that because of non-appearance of the petitioner or of Kamal Krishna Pathak the learned Magistrate accepted the FRT and thereby discharged the two petitioners herein. It is submitted by Mr. It is submitted by Mr. Maitra that it was not without the knowledge of the police personnel that the petitioner has been residing in USA and that his power-of-attorney holder Kamal Krishna Pathak is in Kolkata. Therefore, neither upon the complainant nor upon the power-of-attorney holder notice was served, and it was allegedly served upon one Smt. Rina Mondal whose identity is disputed by the complainant. Therefore, when it was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that no notice was served upon the petitioner or the power-of-attorney holder and it was specifically pleaded before the learned Magistrate that fraud has been practised upon the Court the learned Magistrate could rise to the occasion to launch an enquiry by examination of relevant persons so as to find out whether notice was or was not really served upon the petitioner or Kamal Krishna Pathak. Thus when the order of discharge is still in force the invoking of provision of section 362 Cr. P.C. is unwarranted. It is submitted that in the connected service return of the notice there is thumb impression of Rita Mondal. The said acknowledgement does not appear any endorsement that Smt. Rina Mondal was the caretaker of the de facto-complainant. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Rina Mondal is neither the caretaker appointed by the de facto-complainant nor an agent in any manner whatsoever. When the Investigating Agency was well aware of the fact that the de facto-complainant was a citizen of USA they should have sent the letter to his address at USA which they did not. It is submitted that since the order of discharge has not yet been negatived the petitioners cannot be said to have been aggrieved and in that way they did not have any locus to prefer the application under section 482 Cr. P.C. My attention has been drawn to a decision in this connection in State of Rajasthan vs. Aruna Devi and Ors. 1995(1) SCC 1 where it was held that even after the case is closed as a mistake of fact if subsequently detected and the Investigating Agency brings out further materials to substantiate the allegations the same is permissible. Mr. Maitra submits that fraud vitiates everything and an order obtained by practising fraud upon the Court can very well be nullified by the Court passing the order and provision of section 362 Cr. Mr. Maitra submits that fraud vitiates everything and an order obtained by practising fraud upon the Court can very well be nullified by the Court passing the order and provision of section 362 Cr. P.C. does not come to the aid of the person who is alleged to have connived in the matter of obtaining a purported acknowledgement of notice through Smt. Rina Mondal. When it is brought to the knowledge of the court that a fraud has been practised it is the duty of the Court to investigate into the allegations. It is submitted that in the matter of service summons of notices there is provision of section 64 Cr. P.C. which provides that a servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of the section. As to the question of verification of petition the same is not mandatory in the matter of filing of an application in Subordinate Criminal Court. It is submitted that under the CPC (Order 6 Rule 15) it is mandatory to verify an application before filing in the Civil Court but the legislature consciously excluded such provision in the Cr. P.C. It is argued that it is the well-settled principle of law that practice of the Court is the law of the Court and reliance has been placed in the CIT Bombay City vs. R.H. Pandit, AIR 1974 SC 2269 . With regard to authority of the constituted power of attorney it is submitted that I.O. seized certain documents from Kamal Krishna Pathak describing him as power-of-attorney holder of the de facto-complainant and it is the averment of the power-of-attorney holder that he does not know Rina Mondal. Thus, according to Mr. Maitra the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in launching an enquiry as to whether notice was served upon the complainant or not. Mr. Maitra in this connection refers to the decisions in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj vs. State of A.P. & Ors., 1999(5) SCC 740 ; Union of India and Others vs. Anil Kmaar and Others, 1999(5) SCC 743 ; Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Papaiah and Ors., 1997(7) SCC 614 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat., 1997(7) SCC 622 ; State of Rajasthan vs. Aruna Devi and Ors., 1995(1) SCC 1 ; Rajiv K. Garg and Ors. vs. Shanti Bhusan, Senior Advocate & Ors., 1995(1) SCC 3 ; Sanjay Bansal & Anr. vs. Jawajaria Vats & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 207 ; B. Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 210 ; Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2008(2) SCC 409 ; Sarabjit Rick Singh vs. Union of India, 2008(2) SCC 417 ; A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Government of, A.P. & Ors., JT 2007(4) SC 186; National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Siemens Atkeingesellschaft, JT 2007 (4) SC 202; The CIT Bombay City vs. The Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd., AIR 1974 SC 2269 ; P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 ; Vishwa Mitter vs. O.P. Poddar and ors., AIR 1984 SC 5 ; T. Vijendradas and Anr. vs. M. Subramanian and ors., 2007(8) SCC 751 ; Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI, 2007(8) SCC 770 ; Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and Anr., 2006(7) SCC 416. 7. I have gone through the order of the learned Magistrate which is quite a very lengthy one giving the reasons as to why he was deciding to start an enquiry into the allegation that by practising fraud upon the Court a notice was purported to have been served so that order of discharge could be secured behind the back of the complainant. Learned Magistrate clearly observed that it is well settled that fraud must be established beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be based on suspicion and conjecture. In the circumstances it was required to be adjudicated as to whether fraud had been practised upon the Court or not. When in so many words with alleged facts presented before the learned Magistrate it was sought to be established that neither the de facto complainant nor Kamal Krishna Pathak did ever receive any notice and that fraud was practised upon them learned Magistrate does not appear to have committed any illegality in causing an enquiry to be made by himself by examination of relevant persons so as to find out whether the allegations of fraud could be established or not Mr. Bandyopadhyay was not correct when he submitted that it is not permissible to seek for external evidence in order to find out existence or otherwise of alleged fraud because if Kamal Krishna Mondal is not examined, if the de facto-complainant is not examined, if the power-of-attorney holder is not examined, if the I.O. or the O.C. is not examined, the learned Magistrate will be unable to find out the truthness or otherwise of the allegation of fraud. Truly, it is said that fraud and collusion are sufficient ground in rescinding an order. Fraud vitiates everything and a judgment and order obtained by fraud is treated in the eye of law as a nullity. Fraud is an extrinsic, collateral act. The fact is that order of discharge is still in force and the learned Magistrate has simply directed an enquiry to be made. Kamal Krishna Pathak by filing the petition for recalling does not appear to have gone beyond the power-of-attorney, and it is his claim that neither he nor his principal did receive any notice and as far as Smt. Rina Mondal is concerned, he does not know her. This is well within his competence to allege. Furthermore, the law is well-settled that the de facto-complainant has right of being heard on the I.O.'s prayer for discharge. The learned Magistrate's record revealed Rina Mondal's acceptance of notice but none appeared for the de facto complainant. In the circumstance, I do not find that the Magisterial order suffers from any illegality or without jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The order of the learned ACJM, Sealdah is confirmed. 9. CRAN No. 2794 of 2008 stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.