ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned Advocate, Ms. Ratna Vora, waives service of rule for Opponent No.1-original accused, whereas, learned Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, waives for Opponent No.2-First Informant. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant-State, i.e. original Respondent No.1, seeking to recall the order passed by this Court, Dated: 11.03.2022, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3446 of 2022, whereby, this Court quashed and set aside the FIR, bearing No. 11210015220019 of 2022, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City, District: Surat, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that Opponent No.1- Original accused arrived at a settlement with Opponent No.2-First Informant. 3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Raval, appearing for the applicant-State submitted that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by Opponent No.2-First Informant with DCB Police Station, Surat City, against Opponent No.1- Original Accused and others. 3.1 After the filing of the aforesaid FIR, it appears that Opponent No.1-Original Accused allegedly arrived at a settlement with Opponent No.2-First Informant and filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), i.e. Criminal Misc. Application 3446 of 2022, before this Court on the ground of settlement. 3.2 It was submitted that relying on the statement made by Opponent No.2-First Informant, who was personally present before this Court and was duly identified by the learned Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, representing his case, this Court quashed and set aside the FIR in question vide order dated 11.03.2022. 3.3 At this stage, learned APP, Mr. Raval, submitted that while filing the application under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground of settlement between Opponent No.1-Original Accused and Opponent No.2-First Informant, Opponent No.1-Original Accused suppressed the material facts before this Court. 3.4 It was submitted that the concerned Investigating Officer had filed an affidavit before the concerned trial Court, while opposing the bail application filed by Opponent No.1-Original Accused. 3.4.1 It was submitted that in the said affidavit, the concerned Investigating Officer has specifically stated that when Opponent No.1-Original Accused was interrogated, at the time of her remand, she had specifically stated that she had obtained different amounts from about 19 different persons and thereby, she collected Rs.73,05000/- 3.4.2 It was submitted that, though, opponent No.1-Original Accused was aware of the said affidavit, this aspect was not disclosed before this Court and therefore, by relying on the submissions made by the learned Advocate, Ms. Vora, appearing for Opponent No.1-Original Accused and learned Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, appearing for Opponent No.2-First Informant that Opponent No.2-First Informant is the only and the sole victim, as there is reference of Opponent No.2-First Informant only in the FIR, this Court exercised the powers under Section 482 of the Code and quashed and set aside the said FIR qua Opponent No.1-Original Accused. 3.4.3 It was, therefore, prayed that the order dated 11.03.2022 be recalled. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Ms. Vora, appearing for Opponent No.1-Original Accused strongly opposed this application and referred to the affidavit filed by Opponent No.1-Original Accused. 4.1 It was submitted that Opponent No.1-Original Accused came to be arrested on 23.01.2022 and she was remanded to police custody upto 28.01.2022. Thereafter, she was sent into judicial custody. Later on, she was released on bail vide order dated 03.02.2022 by the concerned trial Court. 4.2 It was submitted that Opponent No.1-Original Accused was not aware of filing of such an affidavit by the concerned Investigating Officer, opposing the bail application filed by her. 4.3 It was also submitted that the concerned Advocate, who had appeared for Opponent No.1-Original Accused before the trial Court concerned, had not supplied a copy of such an affidavit to her. 4.4 It was submitted that Opponent No.1-Original Accused had collected total Rs.23,47,000/- from different persons. However, she has already returned the entire amount to the concerned persons. 4.5 Further, it was submitted that the amount of Rs.73,00,000/- mentioned by the concerned IO in his affidavit filed before the concerned trial Court, in fact, is the amount, which is to be recovered by Opponent No.1-Original Accused from the persons named in the said affidavit. 4.6 Learned Advocate, Ms. Vora, therefore, submitted that as such, there is no suppression on the part of Opponent No.1-Original Accused and hence, this application be dismissed. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, appearing for Opponent No.2-First Informant submitted that Opponent No.2 was not aware about any other victims and therefore, he did not disclose the said aspect before this Court. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, it is revealed that the FIR in question, bearing No. 11210015220019 of 2022, was lodged by Opponent No.2- First Informant with DCB Police Station, Surat City, District: Surat, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against Opponent No.1-Original Accused. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, it is revealed that the FIR in question, bearing No. 11210015220019 of 2022, was lodged by Opponent No.2- First Informant with DCB Police Station, Surat City, District: Surat, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against Opponent No.1-Original Accused. 6.1 In the aforesaid FIR, itself, it is alleged that the concerned accused had obtained Rs.14,50,000/- from Opponent No.2-First Informant for making the arrangements for him to play cricket matches in different state teams and in Ranji Trophy tournament. 6.2 It is pertinent to note that pursuant to filing of the FIR in question, Opponent No.1-Original Accused was arrested on 23.01.2022 and was sent for police remand upto 28.01.2022. 6.2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of her remand, Opponent No.1- Original Accused revealed that she had obtained a total sum of Rs.73,05,000/- from different persons / victims, which are about 20 in numbers. 6.2.2 In view of the above, when Opponent No.1- Original Accused filed bail application before the concerned Trial Court, the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit, detailing the information given by Opponent No.1-Original Accused during the course of her remand. Since, the details given in the affidavit by the concerned Investigating Officer was pursuant to the same disclosed to him by Opponent No.1-Original Accused during the course of her remand, now, it is not open on the part of Opponent No.1-Original Accused to contend that she was not aware of the names and details of the other victims, which were mentioned in the affidavit filed by the concerned Investigating Officer. 6.3 It is pertinent to note that by suppressing the aforesaid vital aspect and by submitting before this Court that Opponent No.2-First Informant is the only victim, as there is reference of only Opponent No.2-First Informant in the FIR in question, with whom she has now settled the dispute, Opponent No.1- Original Accused obtained the order / relief under Section 482 of the Code and got the FIR in question quashed. 6.3.1 It may also be noted that on 11.03.2022, when this Court passed the order of quashing of the FIR in question, Opponent No.2-First Informant was also present in person before this Court, who was duly identified by learned Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, representing him before this Court. 6.3.1 It may also be noted that on 11.03.2022, when this Court passed the order of quashing of the FIR in question, Opponent No.2-First Informant was also present in person before this Court, who was duly identified by learned Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, representing him before this Court. Thus, relying on the statement made by Opponent No.2-First Informant before this Court that the matter is settled with Opponent No.1-Original Accused, so also the affidavit filed by him and also considering the submission of learned Advocates appearing for the original accused and the complainant that Opponent No.2 is the sole and only victim in the FIR in question, this Court allowed the said application and quashed and set aside the FIR in question on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties. 6.4 In fact, it was the duty of Opponent No.1- Original Accused to state true and complete facts before this Court. As observed herein above, Opponent No.1-Original Accused was very well aware about the other victims, as she herself had disclosed their details, during the course of her remand, before the concerned Investigating Officer. 6.5 It is, further, required to be noted that the FIR in question was filed on 20.12.2022, whereas, the application under Section 482 of the Code came to be filed by Opponent No.1-Original Accused on 04.02.2022, which was listed for hearing on 11.03.2022 and this Court, on the ground of the settlement arrived at between Opponent No.1-Original Accused and Opponent No.2-First Informant as well as the statement made and affidavit of settlement filed by Opponent No.2-First Informant before this Court, order to quash the FIR in question qua Opponent No.1- Original Accused. 6.6 At this stage, profitable it would be to refer to the decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of ‘STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR’, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 . 6.6.1 In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has observed and held as under in Paragraphs-45, 46 and 50 thereof; “45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. 6.6.1 In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has observed and held as under in Paragraphs-45, 46 and 50 thereof; “45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1544 ; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145 ). 46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. (Vide: Chitawan & Ors. v. Mahboob Ilahi, 1970 Crl.L.J. 378; Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1985 Crl.L.J. 23; Habu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj. 83 (F.B.); Swarth Mahto & Anr. v. Dharmdeo Narain Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1300 ; Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan, AIR 1981 SC 1156 ; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 703 ; and Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1232 ). XXX XXX XXXX 50. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision. If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where there are no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. (See: Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr, (1990) 2 SCC 437 ).” 6.6.2 Thus, from the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it can be said that, if, a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where, the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where, an order was obtained by abuse of the process of the court, which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate. 6.6.3 In the present case, as discussed herein above, opponent No.1-Original Accused obtained the order dated 11.03.2022 by suppressing the material facts and the same would amount to nothing, but, the clear abuse of the process of the Court, and therefore, the order dated 11.03.2022 is required to be recalled. 7. Resultantly, this application is ALLOWED and the impugned order dated 11.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3446 of 2022, is hereby RECALLED. 7. Resultantly, this application is ALLOWED and the impugned order dated 11.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3446 of 2022, is hereby RECALLED. 7.1 Consequent to the recalling of the order dated 11.03.2022, the FIR in question, bearing No. 11210015220019 of 2022, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City, District: Surat, under Section 420 of the IPC shall stand REVIVED and it shall be open to the concerned Investigating Agency / Investigating Officer to carry out FURTHER INVESTIGATION against all the accused persons, including Opponent No.1-Original Accused herein, and any other accused found during the course of investigation, in accordance with law. 7.2 Learned APP to COMMUNICATE this order to the concerned Investigation Officer / Investigating Agency. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.