Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This application has been filed by Amrit Lal, applicant/petitioner for review of the judgement and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11428 (M/B) of 2010 : Amrit Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby the petition for quashing the F.I.R. was dismissed.
The review of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 has been sought on the ground that subsequent to the date of order dated 24.11.2010, certain new and important facts were discovered which were not within the knowledge of the applicant and could not be argued before the court when the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 was passed. That the alleged abducted person Shri Prem Shanker Pandey was himself involved in a criminal case and non bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also issued against him by C.J.M., Sultanpur and the petitioner was falsely implicated in Case Crime No.443 of 2008. The police had failed to trace the abducted persons and a final report was submitted by the police but subsequently in the garb of further investigation, the petitioner was unnecessarily being harassed and as such the applicant has moved the court for quashing the F.I.R. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the, it is necessary to review the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this court.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the review petition on two grounds firstly that the review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no provision for review of the judgment and order and ; secondly that there appears no sufficient ground to review the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 as the truthness or falsity of the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner cannot be gone into in the proceedings for quashing the F.I.R. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such the application deserves rejection.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the impugned judgment and order alongwith ruling cited by the parties.
In so far as the power of this court to review its decision given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is now settled law that High Court has inherent power to review its decision given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. It is settled law that if the court in exercise of its power, has committed any mistake, it has the plenary power to correct its own mistake. Neither rule of procedure nor technicalities can stand in its way. The entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by High Court is founded on equity and fairness. If court finds that the order was passed under a mistake or due to some erroneous assumption which in fact did not exists then the court on any principle cannot be precluded from rectifying error by reviewing its judgment and order. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Deo Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1963 SC 1919, Hari Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others (2006) 4 SCC 78, M. M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 1 SCC 666 and Food Corporation of India and Another Vs. M. S. Shiel Ltd. and Others AIR 2008 SC 1101.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the review of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is permissible provided the ground for doing so exists.
Now the next question that remains for consideration is whether there exists any ground to review the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.11428 (M/B) of 2010.
It has been stated in the application for review that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and frivolous and even the police had submitted final report in the matter and it is being further investigated by the police and the police is harassing the petitioner. It reveals from the perusal of the impugned order that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. It is not within the dominance of this court in the proceedings under Section 226 of the Constitution to comment on the truthness or falsity of the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is a matter to be dealt with by the court at the time of the trial. At the stage, when F.I.R. has been sought, to be quashed, the court has to see whether the allegations discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. The court cannot enter into the truthness of falsity of the allegations. Thus the ground that the allegations are false against the applicant is not available to the petitioner at this stage. Further more, the Review Application has a very narrow compass . The Court cannot consider fresh grounds and fresh arguments in review. It has been laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) SCC 596 as under;-
"A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it", In view of the above, there exists no sufficient ground to review the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.11428 (M/B) of 2010. In the result, the application has no force and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected.