JUDGMENT 1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for re-appraisal of the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by this court in criminal revision No. 2037/2015, whereby this court has affirmed the order passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal revision No. 371/2014 in which 8th Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision presented by the respondents accused and set-aside the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in which Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal took cognizance against the respondents-accused no. 1 and 2 under Section 181, 193, 195, 211 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 Subhash Chandra Lalwani filed a private complaint under Sections 466, 467, 468, 420 read with 120-B of IPC against the present petitioner Anand Kumar and others in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal which was registered as R.T. No. 4798/2012. Present petitioner preferred a revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Revision was dismissed by order dated 15.01.2013, thereafter petitioner filed M.Cr.C. No. 4998/2013 under Section 482 of Cr.P. C. before this court which was allowed and consequently the complaint was quashed in M.Cr.C. No. 4998/2013, thereafter, this order was confirmed by the Apex Court by order dated 21.02.2014. This Court also gave the finding that respondent no. 2 had concocted the civil case in the garb of a criminal complaint only to pressurize petitioner and respondent no. 1 did not tell the truth, thereafter petitioner filed an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure against respondents no. 1 and 2 for perjury in the same court of Judicial Magistrate Firxt Class, Bhopal. Statement of petitioner and witnesses were recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate after scrutinizing the documents and statement of witnesses, found substantial prima facie case to take cognizance against the respondents no. 1 and 2, thereafter criminal complaint was registered as R.T. No. 6304/2014 against respondent no. 1 and 2 under Sections 181, 193, 195, 211 & 120-B of I.P.C. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed revision against this order under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 1973, which was registered as criminal revision No. 371/2014 in the Court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal which was allowed and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 02.07.2014 was set-aside. 1 and 2 filed revision against this order under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 1973, which was registered as criminal revision No. 371/2014 in the Court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal which was allowed and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 02.07.2014 was set-aside. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. This revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 2037/2015 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 1973. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class recorded statement of petitioner and witness Smt. Mohna Lalwani, Ashok Kumar Parakh under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 02.07.2014 registered case under Sections 181, 193, 195, 211 & 120-B of I.P.C. against respondents no. 1 and 2. He further submits that even if it presumed that the procedure adopted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was erroneous, still the proceeding could not be vitiated but only rectified as per Section 460(e) and 465 of the Cr.P.C. Learned court has not given any finding that proceedings before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has resulted in a failure of justice. Learned court has erred in their judgment by quashing the case on mere technical grounds rather than remanding back the case to the learned lower court with instruction to proceed with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that even if it is to be assumed that Judicial Magistrate First Class committed an inadvertent irregularity in taking cognizance upon the complaint filed by the petitioner instead of holding a preliminary inquiry in terms of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. still the same was not an illegality but a mere irregularity which is curable under Section 460 of Cr.P.C. In fact the order passed is per se unsustainable, as this court appears to have glossed over the fact that an exception has been carved out by virtue of Section 460 of Cr.P.C. even in respect of an erroneous order passed under Section 190(1) (a) (b). A bare perusal of clause (e) of Section 460 of Cr.P.C. would demonstrate that it is mandated under law that no proceeding would be set-aside merely on the ground of a Magistrate not being empowered to take cognizance of an offence. That being the undisputed proposition of law. The impugned orders dated 22.08.2016 and 15.07.2015 assailed under this application have become otiose and a complete nullity in law and consequently are liable to the set-aside. Under these exceptional circumstances this court should exercise its inherent powers bestowed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of judicial procedures and secure the ends of justice and setaside the orders dated 22.08.2016 and 15.07.2015, so that the trial court may proceed with the case on merits rather than setting aside the order due to a procedural irregularity which was not committed by the petitioner. Actually respondents-accused no. 2 has mislead the court by giving a false and ambiguous statement with a criminal intent to show that his living mother Smt. Mohna Lalwani as dead. Smt. Mohna Lalwani was alive. Respondent no.1 has also given false finding before the trial Judge so impugned order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal be set-aside and also this Court should do re-appraisal of the order dated 22.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision 2037/2015. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 submits that 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal passed the order dated 15.07.2015 on merit, thereafter, petitioner filed criminal revision before this Court and this court also passed the order on merit and dismissed the criminal revision presented by the petitioner so there is no scope of reappraisal of order which is passed by this Court on merit, so the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. Firstly it would be appropriate to read the Section 362 of Cr.P.C. which is quoted as under:- '362. Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 7. It is admitted fact that respondent no. Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 7. It is admitted fact that respondent no. 2 Subhash Chandra Lalwani filed a private complaint under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 120-B of IPC against the present petitioner Anand Kumar and others in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. Learned JFMC inquired the matter and took cognizance against the petitioner and others under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 120-B of IPC, thereafter petitioner filed a criminal revision NO.702/2012 before 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal dismissed the criminal revision on 15.01.2013, thereafter petitioner filed a case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 4998/2013. This court allowed the petition presented by the petitioner on 07.10.2013, and setaside the order of cognizance against the petitioner dated 20.06.2013 and revisional order dated 15.01.2013. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance against the respondents and other under Section 181, 183, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 211 and 120-B of IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class inquired the matter and took the statement of petitioner and other witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and took cognizance under Section 181, 193, 195, 211 read with 120-B of IPC against the respondents vide order dated 02.07.2014 then respondent no. 1 and 2 filed criminal revision before 8th Additional sessions judge, Bhopal. Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal allowed the revision presented by the respondent no. 1 and 2 and quashed the cognizance order dated 02.07.2014 of Judicial Magistrate First Class-Bhopal. 1 and 2 filed criminal revision before 8th Additional sessions judge, Bhopal. Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal allowed the revision presented by the respondent no. 1 and 2 and quashed the cognizance order dated 02.07.2014 of Judicial Magistrate First Class-Bhopal. Relevant paras of order passed in Cr.R. No. 371/2014 reads as under:- 13- orZeku izdj.k esa tks vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk 340 n-iz-l- ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k gS mlesa mijksDr fookn ds lkFk&lkFk ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd vukosnd lqHkk"kpanz yyokuh us viuh thfor eka Jherh eksguk yyokuh dks e`r gksuk crk;k gS tcfd og dFku ds le; mlh ds lkFk jgrh FkhA U;k;ky; ds er esa Jherh eksguk yyokuh dks e`r crk;k tkuk gh fookn dh tM+ gSA U;k;ky; }kjk mDr lEiw.kZ dFku dks ns[kk x;kA U;k;ky; ds er esa mDr dFku dk vFkZ ;g fd ikuey dh rhu iqf=;ka Fkha ftuesa ls igyh eksguk yyokuh nwljh :idqekjh esgrk ftldh e`R;q gks xbZ Fkh vkSj rhljh izsek tSu FkhA bl okD; dks i<+us ij ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd lk{kh eksguk yyokuh vkSj :idqekjh esgrk dh e`R;q gks tkuk crk jgk gS tcfd /;ku ls ns[kus ij ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd eksguk yyokuh dks e`r ugha crk;k x;k gS cfYd dsoy :idqekjh esgrk dks e`r gksuk crk;k x;k gSA vr% bl okD; ds vk/kkj ij dh tk jgh vkifRr O;FkZ gSA 14 ,d vkifRr bl vk/kkj ij yh xbZ gS fd /kkjk&340 n-iz-l- dk ;g vkosnu mlh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha gqvk gS ftlesa ewy ifjokn pyk FkkA bl laca/k esa vf/koDrkx.k }kjk foLrkj ls cgl dh xbZ gSA U;k;ky; esa er esa ;g lgh gS fd ;g ifjokn vly esa mlh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gksuk pkfg, Fkk] ftlesa ewy ifjokn pyk FkkA 15] orZeku U;k;ky; }kjk Hkk-n-l- dh /kkjk&340 n-iz-l- dk vkosnu] ifjoknh lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa dks ns[kk x;k] orZeku U;k;ky; ds er esa U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh dk fu"d"kZ fcYdqy vuqfpr gS ,slk mijksDr leh{kk esa yksdl LVs.MkbZ ds iz'u dks ns[krs gq, vkSj ;g /;ku j[krs gq, fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius mijksDr vkns'k esa ;g Li"V :i ls dgk x;k gS fd ;g fookn ewyr% flfoy izd`fr dk gS vkSj bls tkucw>dj nkf.Md izdj.k ds :i esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ifjoknh lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ls orZeku /kkjk&340 n-iz-l ds vkosnu esa@ifjokn esa mijksDr vijk/kksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh vijk/k fd;k tkuk izdV ugha gks jgk gS] ,sls esa tc dksbZ ekeyk izdV u gks jgk gks rks laKku u fy;k tkuk gh mfpr gksrk gSA ,sls esa ;g iqujh{k.k vkosnu Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh U;k;ky; us izdj.k esa tks laKku fy;k Fkk og iwjh rjg buVksVks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nkf.Md izdj.k dzekad 6304@2014 vkuan dqekj fo:) lqHkk"kpan o vU; ds izdj.k esa fnukad 02-07-2014 ds vkns'k dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj rnkuqlkj ;g iqujh{k.k vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA Thereafter, petitioner filed criminal revision No. 2037/2015 before this Court. This Court also dismissed the petition presented by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Cr.R. No. 371/2014 dated 15.09.2015. Relevant para reads as under:- '12. If we were to place aforesaid sentences in the context, it would be clear that the respondents had categorically mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the private complaint in the earlier litigation that Smt. Suraj Bai had three daughters. One of the daughters, Smt. Roop Kumari had expired and remaining two daughters Smt. Mohana Lalwani and Prema @ Pramila are alive. It was further stated in paragraph No. 10 that Smt. Mohana Lalwani is aged 75 years and Prema is aged 61 years. It was also stated in paragraph No.12 of the complaint that only old ladies Smt. Mohana Lalwani and Smt. Prema Jain had signed the family statements. Thus, it is absolutely clear that respondent had no intention of concealing the fact that Smt. Mohana Lalwani, who in any case was the mother of main parties on either side, was alive. Nor could the respondents have hoped to derive any advantage from aforesaid fact; therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is utterly inconceivable that the respondents made a deliberately false statement on oath to the effect that she is dead. This private complaint was obviously an attempt on the part of the petitioner/complainant to settle scores with the respondents for having filed a private complaint against him earlier." 8. So it is evident from the aforesaid discussion that the order was passed on merit by 8th Additional Sessions Judge on 15.07.2015 and this Court on 22.08.2016, so when the order was passed on merit by this court then provision under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. bar the appraisal of the impugned order. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain (2008) 2 SCC 705 as under:- '30. To us, the learned counsel for the appellant is right that in substance and in reality, the High Court has exercised power of review not conferred by the Code on a Criminal Court. Section 362 of the Code does not empower a Criminal Court to alter its judgment. It reads thus: 362. To us, the learned counsel for the appellant is right that in substance and in reality, the High Court has exercised power of review not conferred by the Code on a Criminal Court. Section 362 of the Code does not empower a Criminal Court to alter its judgment. It reads thus: 362. Court not to alter judgment :-- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. (emphasis supplied) 31. The section makes it clear that a Court cannot alter or review its judgment or final order after it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. The scheme of the Code, in our judgment, is clear that as a general rule, as soon as the judgment is pronounced or order is made by a Court, it becomes functus officio (ceases to have control over the case) and has no power to review, override, alter or interfere with it. 32. No doubt, the section starts with the words Save as otherwise provided by this Code. Thus, if the Code provides for alteration, such power can be exercised. For instance, subsection (2) of Section 127. But in absence of express power, alteration or modification of judgment or order is not permissible. 33. It is also well settled that power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred on a Court by a specific or express provision to that effect. [Vide Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 ] No power of review has been conferred by the Code on a Criminal Court and it cannot review an order passed or judgment pronounced. In Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 169 , this Court held that a High Court has no jurisdiction to alter or review its own judgment or order except to the extent of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. It deprecated the practice of filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions after disposal of main matters and issuance of fresh directions in such petitions. 34. It deprecated the practice of filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions after disposal of main matters and issuance of fresh directions in such petitions. 34. The Court said; Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or an arithmetical error." 9. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no scope under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for re-appraisal of order passed by this Court, so this petition is dismissed.