JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Adil Jamal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is preferred against the order dated 10.9.2015 in Misc. Application No.67/2015, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C, whereby the applicant has been directed to deposit 50 % of the awarded amount as a condition precedent for the maintainability of the recall application. 3. It is submitted that under the Code, no such condition with regard to deposit of amount could be imposed. 4. A perusal of the proviso appended to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C, provides that on a good cause being shown in an application for recall, an ex parte order may be set aside on such terms including the terms as to the payment of cost, to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. 5. Thus, in a given case, it is always open for the learned Magistrate to impose such terms, which would include a condition of deposit of certain amount of maintenance as a condition precedent for recall. The payment of cost is over and above to the terms, if any. The submission raised is misconceived and is rejected. Moreover, deposit of 50 % of the awarded amount as a condition precedent for the maintainability of a recall application, is not so onerous as would persuade this Court to come to the rescue of the applicant in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, in view of the nature of the proceedings. 6. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality. The application is dismissed.