ORDER : 1. The petitioner in the Crl.M.C. married the 2nd respondent on 22/5/2011 as per religious rites. It was alleged that while they were living together as husband and wife, the petitioner/husband harassed the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally, accusing her that she was not beautiful and that the dowry given at the time of marriage was less. While so, he contracted a second marriage with another woman. 2nd respondent laid FIS on 3/11/2015. Crime No. 783/2015 was registered at Kannamaly police station. After investigation, final report was laid on 14/12/2015, for offences punishable under sections 498A and 494 IPC. 2. Crl.M.C. was filed by the husband contending that with the intervention of well wishers of husband and wife, an amicable settlement was arrived, and parties have resolved to live separately. Hence, the husband sought to quash the criminal proceedings. To support his case, husband relied on an affidavit affirmed by the wife produced as Annexure A. After hearing both sides and relying on the affidavit, Crl.M.C. was allowed by this court, by order dated 1-2-2018 and all proceedings in C.C.No.2079/2015 of JFMC-I, Kochi, arising from Crime No 783/2015 were quashed. 3. The present Crl.M.A. is filed by the wife, with a prayer to recall the order dated 1-2-2018 in the Crl.M.C She asserted that Annexure B affidavit filed along with the Crl.M.C. was sworn on the basis of a post cognizance settlement. She believed that husband will comply with the terms of settlement which mainly included monetary reliefs. However, after paying a paltry amount, husband has now resiled from the settlement on the ground-that she had contracted a re-marriage. It was alleged that he has played fraud on her and hence the order quashing the final report is liable to be recalled. 4. Notice was served on the petitioner in the Crl.M.C. He has not chosen to deny the allegations in the affidavit filed by the wife in support of the Crl.M.A. The contention of the wife that the terms of settlement were flouted by the husband remains undisputed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Admittedly, Crl.M.C. was laid on a premise that Matter was settled between the parties and the continuation of the proceedings after settlement will not be justified. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Admittedly, Crl.M.C. was laid on a premise that Matter was settled between the parties and the continuation of the proceedings after settlement will not be justified. No other ground on merit was urged in the Crl.M.C. The relevant averment in the affidavit filed along with Crl.M.C as Annexure B affirmed by the second respondent is essential for this purpose. It reads as follows. "...in view of the post cognizance settlement arrived at between the respondent and the accused/petitioner in the above Crl.M.C., I have no objection in the above Crl.M.C. being quashed as the accused has undertaken that the terms of settlement will be strictly complied with by him and in all bona fides I believe him". Final report and the further proceedings were quashed by this court on the basis of the settlement and taking cue from the decision reported in Joshy v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC). 7. The above, unambiguously shows that the second respondent agreed for quashing the proceedings on the basis of a post cognizance settlement, the solemn assurance given by the husband to perform the terms of the settlement and the reliance placed by the second respondent on his assurance. It is clear that the edifice, on which the consent of the wife to quash the proceeding was set up, was the settlement of the dispute and the assurance to comply with the terms of settlement. 8. In the light of the breach of the terms of settlement, on the basis of which the consent of the wife was obtained, is this court competent-to recall the order quashing the criminal proceedings ? 9. The power of this court to recall the judgment or order has been the point for consideration in various cases. 8. In the light of the breach of the terms of settlement, on the basis of which the consent of the wife was obtained, is this court competent-to recall the order quashing the criminal proceedings ? 9. The power of this court to recall the judgment or order has been the point for consideration in various cases. In Habu v. State (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83), the Full Bench of Rajasthan High court was called upon to consider whether the decision of the High Court passed in a criminal case in the absence of the accused and/or his counsel can be reviewed or recalled exercising powers under section 482 Cr.PC., if it was established that the absence was due to genuine reason and if so, whether it will be hit by section 362 of Cr.P.C. After an exhaustive analysis of all the judicial precedents on the point, the Full Bench held that the power to recall a judgment/order is different from the power of altering or reviewing of the judgment. It was held that, the bar under section 362 will apply in a case where the judgment/order is sought to be reviewed or corrected. It was held that powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be and should be exercised by the court for recalling the judgment in case hearing is not given to the accused and the case falls within one of the three conditions laid -down under section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that inherent powers are pervasive and comprehensive enough to arm the Court for advancing the cause of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. It is a well known dictum that justice has not only to be done, but it should also appear to have been done and therefore, whenever a litigant- comes *before the Court it is esential that he must go having full faith in his mind that the Court has done justice with his case, it was held. 10. Karnataka High Court in Giridharilal and others v. Pratap Rai Mehta and another (1990)(1) Crimes 205), following the view taken in Habu's case (supra) that power to recall was different from power to review, held that inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. was wide enough to cover any type of cases, if three conditions mentioned therein so warrant. 10. Karnataka High Court in Giridharilal and others v. Pratap Rai Mehta and another (1990)(1) Crimes 205), following the view taken in Habu's case (supra) that power to recall was different from power to review, held that inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. was wide enough to cover any type of cases, if three conditions mentioned therein so warrant. Another Bench of the same High court in Girdharilal v. Pratap Rai Mehta (1989 Crl.L.J. 2382) also followed the Full Bench decision in Habu's case. It was held that there is vital and significant difference between the words 'alter' review' and 'recall'. Section 362 Crl.P.C. puts a complete bar against altering or reviewing of a judgment or final order on merits and the only power given to the court is that it can correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The section does not impose any prohibition for recalling an order. It was held that, to recall a judgment, as understood would be, to revoke, cancel, vacate or reverse a judgment, for matters of facts. 11. In Kunjuvarkey v. State of Kerala (2001 (2) Crimes 342), the revision was dismissed for default. Allowing the Crl.M.C. filed for recalling the judgment, it was reiterated that in such cases powers under section 482 can-be invoked to recall the judgment. 12. The above decisions consistently show that in appropriate cases, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., judgment or order of the court can be recalled. In Habu’s case(supra) and most of the decisions relied on in that case, Section 482 Cr.P.C. was exercised on a finding that judgment was passed without giving opportunity to the accused to be heard. The principle enunciated therein cannot be confined to that contingency alone. It can be extended to any case where any one of the three conditions contemplated in section 482 Cr.P.C is attracted. 13. In the case at hand, the wife gave consent to quash the proceedings on settlement and on the firm assurance that husband would honour his commitment. Evidently, her consent was obtained solely on that assurance. It appears that a legally binding agreement was entered into between the parties, which turned out to be false later. If an order is procured solely on a consent obtained on a false assurance given to a party to the litigation, the continuance of the order will amount to traversity of justice. It appears that a legally binding agreement was entered into between the parties, which turned out to be false later. If an order is procured solely on a consent obtained on a false assurance given to a party to the litigation, the continuance of the order will amount to traversity of justice. Evidently the husband has obtained an order of this court by taking the wife for a ride. The forum of the court cannot be used as a tool for oppression of another party. If the order sought to be recalled is permitted to remain, the wife will be remediless and she will go out of court with a feeling that justice has been denied to her -Evidently, this is an apt case in which the power of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be invoked to meet the ends of justice. 14. Hence, I am satisfied that this, is an eminently fit case in which power of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be invoked. Accordingly, Crl.M.A. is allowed. Order dated 1-2-2018 of this court stands recalled. Post Crl.M.C. for hearing to 27/5/2019.