Criminal Miscellaneous No.25229 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---- MD. YUNUS SON OF LATE FARID MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADHA CALL, POLICE STATION BIKRAM, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MD. MUSLIM SON OF LATE SAFFI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BADHA CALL, POLICE STATION BIKRAM, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES ---- For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mrs. Indul Bala Pandey,A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha,Adv. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.10.1998 passed by Subdivisional Magistrate, Danapur in Case No.18(M) of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall/withdraw the order dated 19.9.1998, which was passed by the same court. 2. By order dated 19.9.1998 on the petition filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 and after getting a report from the Circle Officer, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had directed the Circle Officer to get the close way and drain opened. After the - 2 - order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Danapur in Case No.18(M) of 1998 on 19.9.1998, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall/withdraw the order dated 14.10.1998. 3. Sri Anirudh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. He, by way of referring to the impugned order, submits that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in view of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. has rightly not entertained the petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. categorically makes it clear that no order/judgment can be recalled after the same has been signed except for making correction of clerical error or correcting typographical mistake. He supports the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the impugned order and materials available on record and I find that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly rejected the petition for recall/withdraw of the earlier order. - 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 29.3.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. There is no merit in the petition and petition stands rejected. 5. In this case, by order dated 11.3.1999, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court had directed that in the meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 13.10.1998 in Case No.18(M) of 1998 shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by order dated 3.5.1999, the petition was admitted for hearing and this Court directed that till final disposal of this application, interim order dated 11.3.1999 will continue. 6. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)