Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004380-004381 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 9329/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding on criminal courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to review High Court orders; overrules the High Court’s orders of 24 Jan 2025 and 4 Feb 2025 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that a High Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to review or recall its own orders unless there is an evident clerical or arithmetical mistake correctible under Section 362 CrPC. Once a criminal writ petition with specific relief is dismissed without liberty for re-petition, the same relief cannot be sought afresh by merely changing the petition’s label. Section 482 CrPC cannot override express bars on review, and only Section 362 CrPC applies for correction of patent mistakes. The High Court’s consequential transfer of investigation to the CBI was thus quashed as beyond jurisdiction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant filed multiple proceedings—including a criminal writ and a Section 482 petition—seeking transfer of FIR investigations to the CBI. The High Court initially granted only a representation remedy, then recalled its own order and directed CBI transfer. The Supreme Court found no clerical error, held the High Court’s review impermissible, and quashed those orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All criminal courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and subordinate courts |
| Overrules | High Court orders dated 24 January 2025 and 4 February 2025 |
| Follows | Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court reaffirms that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to review or recall High Court orders; only clerical errors correctible under Section 362 CrPC may be rectified.
- Once a criminal writ petition is dismissed (even as withdrawn) without liberty for repetition, an identical relief cannot be sought afresh by relabelling the petition under Section 482.
- High Courts exceed jurisdiction if they purport to review or modify their reasoned orders absent an evident patent mistake.
- Transfer of investigation orders predicated on such review are vulnerable to quashing on jurisdictional grounds.
- Lawyers may cite this decision to counter applications under Section 482 CrPC that attempt to revisit High Court orders without any change in circumstances or clerical mistakes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The complainant’s initial writ petition seeking CBI transfer was dismissed as withdrawn, with no liberty to renew identical prayers.
- The subsequent Section 482 petition raised the same relief, triggering Section 528 BNSS’s inherent jurisdiction.
- The High Court’s order of 16 January 2025 gave only a representation remedy; there was no clerical error justifying recall.
- Jurisprudence (Simrikhia, Mohan Singh, Sooraj Devi) establishes that Section 482 CrPC cannot override the bar on review—only Section 362 CrPC allows clerical corrections.
- The impugned orders of 24 January 2025 and 4 February 2025 were quashed as they amounted to an impermissible review and transfer of investigation beyond jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (State of Rajasthan)
- High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by reviewing and recalling its own reasoned order without any clerical error.
- Identical prayers had been earlier dismissed in a criminal writ petition; the subsequent petition was a relabelling to secure the same relief.
- Only clerical corrections under Section 362 CrPC are permissible, not substantive review under Section 482.
Respondent-Complainant
- Serious allegations of political influence and unfair investigation by local police warranted transfer to the CBI.
- Director General of Police and senior officials were allegedly aligned with the accused.
- Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was necessary to secure a fair and impartial probe.
Factual Background
The respondent-complainant lodged an FIR alleging criminal misconduct in granite-mining leases and threats by a former minister. After a negative police report and a pending protest petition, he filed a criminal writ and then a Section 482 CrPC petition in the Rajasthan High Court seeking transfer of two FIRs to the CBI. The High Court first granted only a representation remedy, then—by treating the order as a clerical error—recalled it and ordered CBI transfer. The Supreme Court quashed these recall and transfer orders.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS): Inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice, but not to review or recall judgments except to correct patent mistakes.
- Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS): Permits correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in judgments or orders at any time.
- The Court held that absent a bona fide clerical error, a High Court cannot revisit its own final orders under inherent jurisdiction.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns High Court’s orders of 24 January 2025 and 4 February 2025.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Upholds Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee (1990) 2 SCC 437.