Summary
The High Court recalled its own reasoned order, calling it a clerical mistake, and then transferred the investigation of two FIRs to the CBI. The Supreme Court quashed both orders. A criminal court cannot review its own final order under the guise of inherent powers, and a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking the same relief as a writ petition already withdrawn without liberty could not be entertained.
Issues
- Whether, after a writ petition seeking transfer of investigation was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty, a petition under Section 528 BNSS with identical prayers could be entertained.
- Whether the High Court could recall its order of 16/01/2025 as a clerical mistake and then transfer the investigation to the CBI.
Provisions considered
- Section 403 (Section 362 CrPC), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023A court that has signed its judgment or final order may alter it only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The order of 16/01/2025 had no clerical error, so its recall and the later order transferring the investigation were an impermissible review. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Section 528 (Section 482 CrPC), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Following Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, inherent power cannot override the bar on review. It also cannot be invoked to seek, under a new label, the relief prayed for in a writ petition that had been withdrawn without liberty. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28)
Held
- Once the writ petition with identical prayers had been dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to approach the Court again, a later petition under Section 528 BNSS for the same relief, with no pleaded change of circumstances, could not be entertained; it was only a change of label. The complainant's remedy was to challenge the withdrawal order according to law. (¶¶ 14, 25, 28)
- A criminal court has no power to recall or review its own judgment or final order; it may only correct clerical or arithmetical errors, and inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to do what the Code prohibits. (¶ 26)
- The order of 16/01/2025, granting limited relief by way of a representation to the Superintendent of Police, was passed after considering the record and contained no clerical or apparent error. The modification application did not even allege one and in substance sought review, so the recall on the ground of clerical mistake was erroneous on the face of the record. (¶¶ 16, 18, 20, 27)
- The order transferring the investigation to the CBI was in effect a review of the earlier order and fell with the recall order. (¶¶ 19, 29)
Result
State's appeals allowed; High Court orders of 24/01/2025 and 04/02/2025 quashed; complainant given liberty, given the gravity of the allegations, to challenge the orders of 23/10/2024 and 16/01/2025 according to law; connected special leave petitions dismissed as infructuous.