Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court cannot recall such an order once an FIR is quashed by a final judgment under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This decision was delivered in a matter involving a revived FIR based on a compromise that had already led to quashment. The Court observed that, “criminal courts are not vested with power to alter or review final orders except for correcting clerical or arithmetic errors.”
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose from multiple agreements to sell land entered between the parties. Eventually, with intervention from elders, a final compromise agreement was reached, and a fresh sale agreement was executed. The parties mutually agreed to settle their disputes, which led to the filing of a compromise deed and a subsequent quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
However, despite the settlement, the complainant approached the High Court again seeking revival of the FIR. Though one such request was earlier dismissed, a fresh petition led the High Court to recall its earlier quashing order and revive the investigation. The petitioners challenged this recall before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioners argued that once an FIR is quashed by a final judicial order passed under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot recall or review its own judgment. It was contended that the only permissible review under Section 362 CrPC relates to clerical or arithmetic errors, and this did not apply in the instant case.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court discussed the settled scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Citing State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, the Court reiterated that such powers must be exercised sparingly and to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court observed, “All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, such inherent powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. However, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not an avenue for recalling or reviewing final orders once passed, save for clerical corrections.”
Referring to Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, the Court underscored the embargo under Section 362 CrPC, “The legislative bar under Section 362 CrPC is absolute. A criminal court cannot review or alter a judgment that finally disposes of a case, except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors.”
Thus, the Top Court clarified that once a criminal matter has been quashed on the basis of compromise, the High Court does not have the power to subsequently recall that order and direct reinvestigation.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court that had recalled the earlier quashing of the FIR. The Court firmly held that the High Court’s attempt to revive the FIR after it was finally quashed amounted to an impermissible review in criminal jurisdiction.
Case Title: Raghunath Sharma v. The State of Haryana
Case No: SLP(Crl.) Nos 8101-8102 of 2019
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Pankaj Mithal
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. A.R. Takkar, A. Venayagam Balan (AOR), Shriya Takkar, Manan Takkar, Unnati Anand, V. Santhanalakshmi, Puneet Thakur
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Dr Hemant Gupta (A.A.G.), Samar Vijay Singh (AOR), Payal Gupta, Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Rony John, Vineeta Tiwari, Aman Dev Sharma, V. D. Khanna
Picture Source :
