The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday set aside orders of the Rajasthan High Court that had transferred a criminal investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ruling that a High Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment in criminal matters under the guise of correcting an inadvertent error.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, allowing an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, held that once a petition seeking transfer of investigation had been disposed of, the High Court could not entertain a subsequent application to modify that order and grant the relief originally sought. The Court emphasized that the only permissible correction is for clerical errors under Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 362 of the CrPC).
The judgment quashed the Rajasthan High Court’s orders dated January 24, 2025, which recalled a previous order, and February 4, 2025, which subsequently transferred the probe in two FIRs to the CBI.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a complaint lodged by Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Joshi alleged that after a business deal concerning mining leases fell through, Mr. Ramlal Jat, then a Revenue Minister in the State Government, threatened him and his family. The complaint, which led to the registration of FIR No. 211 of 2023, detailed allegations of threats, theft of minerals and equipment, and interference in his business. It was alleged that the minister claimed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police were on his “beck and call.”
The police filed a negative report in this FIR, concluding the dispute was civil in nature. Joshi filed a protest petition against this report. Subsequently, he filed two more applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, leading to the registration of FIR No. 202 of 2024 and FIR No. 234 of 2024 at P.S. Kareda, Bhilwara.
Dissatisfied with the local police investigation, Joshi first approached the Rajasthan High Court with S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024, seeking to transfer the investigation of the two new FIRs to the CBI. However, on October 23, 2024, the counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, and it was “dismissed as withdrawn.”
Shortly after, Joshi filed another petition before the High Court, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025, under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 CrPC), with prayers nearly identical to the withdrawn writ petition. On January 16, 2025, the High Court disposed of this petition, directing Joshi to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police, who was in turn expected to instruct the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. The High Court did not grant the prayer for a CBI probe.
A few days later, Joshi filed a miscellaneous application (No. 60 of 2025) seeking modification of the January 16 order, arguing that the “purpose of filing the misc. petition would vitiate if the relief as prayed is not granted.”
On January 24, 2025, the learned Single Judge recalled the order of January 16, stating, “Due to heavy board on 16.01.2025, inadvertently, a clerical mistake occurred and this Misc Petition No.287/2025 was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police Bhilwara to ensure fair investigation.” Following this, on February 4, 2025, the High Court allowed the main petition and transferred the investigation to the CBI.
Arguments in the Supreme Court
Appearing for the State of Rajasthan, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court’s orders were “grossly illegal and without jurisdiction.” He contended that the High Court had effectively reviewed its own order, which is impermissible in criminal law. He further submitted that the second petition was filed without any change in circumstances after the first writ petition with identical prayers was dismissed as withdrawn.
Representing the complainant, Senior Counsel Siddharth Dave supported the High Court’s decision. He argued that the investigation was being unfairly influenced by a former minister and senior police officials, compelling the complainant to seek justice from the High Court. He submitted that the dismissal of the first petition did not preclude a fresh approach, as the biased conduct of the investigating officer continued.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s actions legally untenable. The bench held that after the first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to file afresh, a subsequent petition for the same relief could not have been entertained. The Court observed, “The attempt so made was nothing but a change in the label of the petition with the substance being the same.”
The central point of the judgment was the High Court’s lack of review powers in criminal cases. The Court stated, “Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC].”
The bench referred to its earlier decision in Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another, which held, “The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review u/s 362… The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s reasoning for recalling its January 16 order—that a “clerical mistake occurred”—was “erroneous on the face of the record” and “not borne out from the record.”
Delivering the final verdict, the bench ruled, “As a result, the impugned orders dated 24th January, 2025 and 4th February, 2025 do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed.”
However, “considering the gravity of allegations,” the Court granted liberty to the complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, to take recourse to suitable legal remedies for challenging the earlier orders of the High Court dated October 23, 2024, and January 16, 2025, if he so desired.
