Knowledge Centre

Power of a Criminal Court to Recall or Review Its Own Judgment

INTRODUCTION

In a notable development, the Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’) has held 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 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (earlier Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).¹State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi & Ors.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2184. The Supreme Court addressed a short, yet pertinent issue i.e. whether a court can recall or review its own decision, except to correct clerical errors, under the exercise of inherent powers available under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) in view of the express bar under Section 403 of the BNSS.

The matter arose from two orders passed by the Single Bench of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur (‘High Court’) dated 24.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 (‘Impugned Orders’). The High Court recalled its earlier order dated 16.01.2025 and subsequently directed that the investigation in First Information Report (‘FIR’) bearing FIR No. 202/2024 and FIR No. 234/2024 filed at Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’).

Subsequently, the State of Rajasthan preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdictional validity of recall and modification of Impugned Orders by the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and Section 482 of the CrPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi (‘Complainant/ Respondent’) was engaged in mining operations through companies viz., M/s Black Mount Granite Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Aravali Granimarmo Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate which was forwarded to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code. Subsequently, FIR No. 211 of 2023 was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The FIR alleged that one of the accused who was also a revenue minister in the Government of Rajasthan threatened the Complainant of dire consequences including blowing up his mine and threatening the life of the family members of the Complainant in case the Complainant demands any money for transfer of shares.
2. Upon completing the investigation, the police filed a negative report in the matter by holding that the allegations made by the Complainant are not made out and the dispute appears to be civil in nature. Aggrieved by the negative report prepared by the police officials, the Complainant filed two more applications under Section 156 (3) of CrPC which were allowed and FIR No. 202/2024 and FIR No. 234/2024 were registered.
3. The Complainant after noticing that the investigation is not being carried out in a transparent and fair manner filed a Criminal Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 2244 of 2024 before the High Court whereby the Complainant prayed for transferring the investigation to CBI. However, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Subsequently, the Complainant again approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 528 of BNSS  bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025 praying for a similar relief as prayed in CWP No. 2244 of 2024. The High Court directed that the Complainant shall submit a representation to the concerned Superintendent of Police along with all documents on which he places reliance. The concerned Superintendent of Police is expected to consider the averments made in the representation and shall instruct the investigating officer of this case to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and submit the result of the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
5. The Complainant filed a miscellaneous application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60 of 2025 seeking modification/ correction of order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025. The High Court vide its order dated 24.01.2025 recalled its order dated 16.01.2025 by citing clerical error made by the Court and subsequently vide order dated 04.02.2025, the investigation was also transferred to CBI by the High Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether a criminal court (or High Court in its criminal jurisdiction) can recall/ review its own earlier reasoned order under its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC in criminal matters, when Section 403 BNSS / Section 362 CrPC prohibits review of a judgment except to correct clerical errors?
2. Whether the High Court could transfer investigation to the CBI through such a recalled/ reviewed order, especially when the earlier petition seeking that relief had been withdrawn without liberty?
3. Whether the petitioners abused the process by filing successive petitions with the same relief, but under a different statute/ label?

CONTENTIONS

Contentions on behalf of the Appellant:

1. The High Court acted without jurisdiction as Section 528 BNSS/ Section 482 CrPC does not confer power of review upon criminal courts.
2. The order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the High Court was reasoned and final and recalling it under the guise of correcting a clerical mistake was illegal and without jurisdiction.
3. The successive petitions were filed with identical prayers and the High Court was not persuaded to accept the prayer made by the Complainant.

Contentions on behalf of the Respondent:

1. The investigation conducted by police officials was partisan and under political influence, the transfer of investigation was fairly handed-over to an independent agency i.e. CBI.
2. The dismissal of writ petitions filed by the Complainant would not preclude the Complainant to approach the Hon’ble High Court in a fresh case as the investigation by the Police Officials was not fair and a biased approach was being taken in favour of the accused.
3. The High Court balanced the equities by reviewing its order dated 16.01.2025 and transferring the investigation to CBI which would not cause prejudice to any party.

JUDGMENT

1. In answering the first issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr., 1990 2 SCC 437 and held that the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the High Court to recall its earlier order dated 16.01.2025 was in effect a review of its own reasoned order which is impermissible. It was reiterated that the only permissible action is to correct or rectify clericals errors under Section 403 BNSS / Section 362 CrPC.
2. It was held that the order dated 16.01.2025 was a reasoned order and not a merely mechanically flawed slip. Thus, the subsequent characterisation of it by the High Court as suffering from a ‘clerical mistake or inadvertence’ was factually unsupported.
3. In answering the second issue, since the orders dated 24.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 were being quashed, the Supreme Court did not venture into evaluating the merits of whether the facts truly warranted a CBI investigation and therefore, the transfer of investigation to CBI was quashed on procedural grounds.
4. In deciding the third issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once a Writ Petition had been dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to approach the High Court for seeking the same relief, another petition with identical prayers should not have been entertained by the High Court under the garb of Section 528 of BNSS.

PSL OPINION

1. The judgment reinforces the fettered exercise of inherent powers by the High Courts in criminal proceedings and serves as a safeguard against judicial overreach under the guise of procedural correction. It reiterates that procedural finality and adherence to statutory provisions constitute the foundation of criminal jurisprudence and that no court may assume jurisdiction to recall or review a reasoned order once rendered, save as expressly permitted by law.
2. The decision firmly establishes that orders passed by the criminal courts must attain finality unless they are reversed or modified through statutorily prescribed remedies. It further adds that the invocation of inherent powers to re-visit earlier orders is impermissible in the ordinary course without adherence to the statutory scheme. It also clarifies that inherent jurisdiction cannot be utilised as a substitute for review or as a means to reopen matters already adjudicated on merits.
3. Although the Court refrained from examining the factual necessity of transferring the investigation to CBI, it emphasised that any such transfer must proceed strictly through a lawful and procedurally valid channel since an order founded on an invalid exercise of power cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

• 1
  State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi & Ors.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2184.