Criminal Court Has No Power To Recall Or Review Its Own Judgment; It Can Only Rectify Clerical Errors: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a Criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own Judgment and it can only correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC].

The Court reiterated thus in Criminal Appeals filed by the State against the Orders of the Rajasthan High Court’s Single Judge, Jodhpur Bench.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC].”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocates Mahindra Singh, Shoeb Alam, and AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

Vide the first Order, the High Court had recalled its earlier Order in a Petition and restored the same to its original number. Vide the second Order, the High Court allowed another Petition and directed the transfer of investigation in FIRs filed by the Respondent-Complainant to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Respondent had lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of CrPC and consequently, an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384, 379, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It was alleged in the FIR that the Complainant had a business of granite mining, and a lease was sanctioned in his favour by the Mineral Department in the year 2012 for mining of granite in village Raghunathpur, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara.

The Complainant was the promoter and director of a company engaged in the business of mining of minerals. He alleged that the two owners demanded Rs. 10 crores from him for the registration of company and pursuant to that, 50% shares of the company were transferred to him and his wife. Allegedly, when the deal subsequently fell through, one of the accused, who was the Revenue Minister in the State Government, got annoyed and threatened the Complainant that if he demanded any money for the transfer of shares, he would blow up the mines with dynamite, make the life of the Complainant’s family miserable, and ensure that he would never be allowed to enter District Bhilwara again.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, remarked, “Ex facie, we are of the opinion that once S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 preferred by the complainant with identical prayers had been dismissed as withdrawn, without there being any liberty to approach the High Court again for seeking self-same relief, the subsequent petition could not have been entertained under the garb of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC]. The attempt so made was nothing but a change in the label of the petition with the substance being the same.”

The Court was of the view that the said Order did not suffer from any clerical error so as to justify the invocation of jurisdiction by the High Court to recall or review the same and the observations made by the Single Judge in the recall order that a clerical mistake occurred while passing the earlier order is not borne out from the record because the said order was passed after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances prevailing on record.

“There was no apparent or manifest error what to say of clerical error in the said order which could justify the recalling or modification thereof. … As a matter of fact, we are of the opinion that once the writ petition being S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 filed by the complainant had been dismissed, another petition seeking the same relief, styling it to be a petition under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC], could not have been entertained”, it noted.

The Court said that the only remedy available to the Complainant in such circumstances would be to assail the Order as per law, if so desired.

“… considering the gravity of allegations, the complainant is given liberty to take recourse to the suitable remedy for challenging the orders dated 23rd October, 2024 and 16th January, 2025 as per law, if so desired”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and quashed the impugned Orders.

Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1205)

Appearance:

Appellant: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocates Mahindra Singh, Shoeb Alam, AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, AORs Nidhi Jaswal, Rohit K. Singh, Advocates Abhinandini Sharma, Saubhagya Sundriyal, Sonali Gaur, and Gaurav Khanna.

Respondents: ASG Brijender Chahar, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, AORs Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Vivek Gupta, Nidhi Jaswal, Saurabh Rajpal Advocates Rajat Nair, Purnendu Bajpai, Chitvan Singhal, Ishaan Sharma, Mrinmay Bhattmewara, H.D. Thanvi, Samprati Bhattmewara, Rajvir Singh Bhati, Amit Singh, Vinay Kumar Singh, and Arpit Bamal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment