[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Swaroop vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
1 MCRC-11676-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11676 of 2019
RAM SWAROOP
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Kushwah - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for respondent [R-2].
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the legality and
propriety of the common order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Coordinate
Bench in M.Cr.C. No.11637/2016 and Criminal Revision Nos. 3842/2018
and 4549/2018, whereby the FIR registered against respondent No.2,
Khushiram, bearing Crime No.46/2016 at Police Station Atreta, District
Datia, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and
193 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the charges framed in Sessions
Trial No.65/2017 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha,
District Datia against the accused persons, came to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
2 MCRC-11676-2019
order suffers from patent illegality and has resulted in miscarriage of justice
inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench failed to appreciate the material on record
demonstrating that respondent No.2 had committed forgery by preparing a
false and fabricated map and, on the basis thereof, procured mutation in his
favour with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners by
encroaching upon their land. It is submitted that the forgery was duly
established during proceedings before the Commissioner in Jan Sunwai, and
the petitioners, upon obtaining a certified copy of the forged map on
30.12.2013 and gaining knowledge of the fraudulent acts, lodged a police
complaint on 29.10.2015 and subsequently filed a private complaint on
14.01.2016 when no action was taken. Pursuant thereto, the FIR was
registered and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
competent court. It is further urged that the Coordinate Bench erred in
treating the dispute as purely civil in nature and in applying the principles
laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
3. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the Full Bench
decision of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain and others vs. State, AIR
1959 All 315, to contend that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are pari materia to Section 561-A of the
old Code, possesses the jurisdiction to recall, review or set aside its earlier
order in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to
secure the ends of justice. It is thus submitted that the present case falls
within the ambit of such exceptional circumstances warranting interference,
and therefore, the order dated 14.02.2019 deserves to be recalled and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
3 MCRC-11676-2019
criminal proceedings be restored in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has
opposed the present petition and submitted that the same is wholly
misconceived and not maintainable in view of the express statutory bar
contained under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is
contended that once a final order has been passed by this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court becomes functus officio
and is not empowered to recall, review or alter the said order except for
correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. It is further submitted that the
order dated 14.02.2019 was passed after due consideration of the entire
material available on record as well as the settled principles of law, and the
same has attained finality. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
though wide in amplitude, cannot be invoked in contravention of an express
statutory prohibition, and permitting such a course would amount to
indirectly exercising a power of review which is specifically barred by law.
Learned counsel submits that the reliance placed by the petitioners on the
decision of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain (supra) is misplaced and
does not override the clear mandate of Section 362 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore,
prayed that the present petition be dismissed as not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also vehemently opposed
the petition and adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. It
is submitted that the petitioners are, in effect, seeking a review and recall of
a final judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which is
impermissible in law in view of the specific embargo under Section 362
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
4 MCRC-11676-2019
Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the petitioners, having failed to challenge
the order dated 14.02.2019 before the appropriate higher forum, cannot be
permitted to reagitate the same issue by filing the present petition under the
guise of invoking inherent powers. Learned counsel submits that the
Coordinate Bench, upon detailed consideration, had rightly held that the
dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature and did not warrant
continuation of criminal proceedings, and accordingly quashed the FIR as
well as the consequential proceedings. The findings recorded therein cannot
now be reopened in collateral proceedings. It is further urged that
entertaining the present petition would defeat the principle of finality of
judicial proceedings and lead to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether this
Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, can recall or review a final order passed earlier by a
Coordinate Bench, whereby the FIR as well as consequential criminal
proceedings were quashed.
8. In this regard, it is apposite to advert to Section 362 Cr.P.C. which is
as under:-
"362. Court not to alter judgment - Save as otherwise provided by
this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no
Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of
a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error."
9. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
5 MCRC-11676-2019
that the legislative intent is to attach finality to judicial decisions and to
prohibit reopening of concluded matters by the same Court. The moment a
judgment or final order is signed, the Court becomes functus officio and is
rendered powerless to revisit, modify, or set aside the same in any manner,
save and except to correct minor clerical or arithmetical mistakes.
10. In the present case, the order dated 14.02.2019 was passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court after due consideration of the material
available on record and the settled principles governing the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the said order, the FIR as well as
the consequential proceedings were quashed, thereby finally disposing of the
matter. The petitioners, by way of the present petition, are in substance
seeking recall and review of the said final order on merits, which is clearly
impermissible in view of the express statutory bar contained in Section 362
Cr.P.C.
11. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that this
Court possesses inherent power to recall its earlier order in order to prevent
abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice cannot be accepted in the
teeth of the statutory prohibition. It is well settled that inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, cannot be exercised in contravention of an
express provision of law. Permitting such a course would render Section 362
of Cr.P.C. otiose and defeat the principle of finality of judicial proceedings.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan
Singh Bajwa and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 43, has held as under :-
"Section 362 of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has
signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
6 MCRC-11676-2019
review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that
once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in
the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus
officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same
relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a
court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The
court becomes functus officio the moment the official order
disposing of a case is signed. Crl. Misc. Nos. 72692-94 of 2012 in
Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a
clerical or arithmetical error. The reliance of the respondent on
Talab Haji Hussain's case (AIR 1958 SC 376 : 1958 Cri LJ 701)
(supra) is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that
inherent powers conferred on High Courts under Section 561A
(Section 482 of the new Code) has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It
is not disputed that the petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7.1.1999.
The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in
view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law
Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the
purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment
but also to the final orders other than the judgment."
13. In a judgment passed in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar & Ors. AIR 2012 Supreme Court 364, it was observed as
under :-
"There is no power of review with the Criminal Court after
judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review
its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot
be reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on an acknowledged
principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a
Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory
provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a
fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal
is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner
prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment
the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be
altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical
error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment.
(See: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., AIR
2001 SC 43; and Chhanni v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 3051).
Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is
absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no
authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. ( (See: Moti Lal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9768
7 MCRC-11676-2019
v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra);
and State of Kerala )."
15. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
decision of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain and others vs. State
(supra) is misplaced and does not advance the case of the petitioners in view
of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the scope and
limitation of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
16. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present petition, which essentially seeks review and recall of
a final order passed by a Coordinate Bench, is not maintainable. The
petitioners, if aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2019, ought to have
challenged the same before a higher forum in accordance with law. They
cannot be permitted to reagitate the issue by invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
17. Accordingly, in the absence of any clerical or arithmetical error in
the impugned order and in view of the absolute bar contained under Section
362 Cr.P.C., no interference is warranted.
18. The petition being devoid of merit and not maintainable is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
