Crl.Rev.No.1390 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1390 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.2.2009 Kela and another .....Petitioners Vs. Umed Singh and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vivek Goyal,Advocate for respondents no.2 to 11. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners, challenge an order dated 10.7.2008, whereby the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, has directed consolidation of the State case with the complaint case. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 20.1.2006, passed by the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, complaint No.127-1C of 1999 was consolidated with the State criminal case No.1321 of 1999. However, pursuant to the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has modified this order and consolidated the State case with the complaint case. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint case is to be tried together with the State case and not vice-versa and even otherwise, the trial Court has no power to modify its earlier order. Crl.Rev.No.1390 of 2008 2 Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any error, as the respondents are entitled to lead their defence by way of pre-charge evidence in the complaint case and, therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri was justified in passing the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, as also the order dated 20.1.2006. It is an established principle of law that a criminal Court has no jurisdiction to review or modify its order, except to the extent of correcting clerical arithmetical mistakes etc. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, therefore, had no jurisdiction to modify the order dated 20.1.2006. Even otherwise, the impugned order has been passed by disregarding the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, the order dated 10.7.2008, insofar as it modifies the order dated 20.1.2006 is set aside and the present petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. 6.2.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE