Summary
The High Court, having quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on the basis of a compromise, later recalled that order under Section 482 CrPC because one party allegedly breached the compromise, and dismissed a review against the recall. The Supreme Court set aside the recall: Section 362 CrPC bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing its signed judgment or final order, inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to do what the Code prohibits, and breach of a compromise is a ground foreign to law for reviving a quashed FIR.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could invoke Section 482 CrPC to recall its earlier order quashing an FIR on the basis of a compromise, and restore the FIR for investigation, on the ground that a party had violated the terms of the compromise.
- What is the scope of the bar in Section 362 CrPC on altering or reviewing a judgment or final order, and what exceptions permit recall through inherent powers.
Provisions considered
- Section 362, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 362 provides that once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case it shall not alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error; the court becomes functus officio. The saving words 'save as otherwise provided by this Code' refer only to provisions that expressly authorise alteration or review and do not bring in the inherent power. The Court held the bar is almost absolute and that recall of a quashing order amounts to impermissible review. (¶¶ 8, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.3.2, 10, 10.1, 14)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent powers exist to give effect to orders under the Code, prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and are to be exercised sparingly. They cannot be used to do what Section 362 specifically prohibits. Recall is possible only where the earlier order is a nullity (passed without jurisdiction, in breach of natural justice or obtained by abuse of process), which was not the case here; reviving a quashed FIR because a compromise was breached was without authority. (¶¶ 3, 7, 9.3, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, 10, 10.1, 11, 12, 14)
- Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences alleged in FIR No. 432 of 2014 arising from agreements to sell; the FIR had been quashed on compromise on 21.03.2016 and was later restored by the impugned order. The Court did not examine the ingredients of these offences. (¶¶ 2, 4)
Held
- Section 362 CrPC confines a criminal court, once it has signed its judgment or final order, to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors; the court is thereafter functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the order is set aside by a competent court. The phrase 'save as otherwise provided by this Code' covers only express statutory authorisation to alter or review and does not extend to the inherent power under Section 482. (¶¶ 8, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.3)
- The inherent power cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits. The only recognised exceptions permitting recall are where the earlier order is a nullity, namely one passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice or without hearing an affected party, or obtained by abuse of the process of court, and the party seeking recall must show it was not at fault. None of these circumstances existed here. (¶¶ 9.3.2, 9.3.4, 11)
- Recall of an order quashing proceedings amounts to an alteration or review of the judgment that Section 362 forbids, and cannot be validated by invoking Section 482; the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order under either provision once a petition is decided on merits. (¶¶ 10, 10.1)
- Once criminal proceedings have been quashed under Section 482 on the basis of a compromise, violation of a term of that compromise by one party is a ground entirely foreign to law for invoking inherent powers again and recalling the quashing order; breach of a compromise has its own legal remedies. (¶ 12)
- Summary of findings and directions: the bar under Section 362 CrPC is almost absolute; the only exceptions permitting inherent powers are where necessary to meet the ends of justice or remedy abuse of process, beyond which inherent powers cannot do what the statute prohibits; and a court invoking the power in such extraordinary circumstances must record reasons justifying it. The Registry was directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's orders dated 08.10.2018 (restoring the quashed FIR and directing fresh investigation) and 29.04.2019 (dismissing review) and all consequences of the revival set aside and quashed; connected appeals disposed of in the same terms; Registry to circulate the judgment to all High Courts; pending applications closed.