The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on criminal procedure, has held that a High Court, after dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), becomes functus officio and does not possess the jurisdiction to review or recall its own order. A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside an order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which had granted interim protection from arrest to an accused in a rape case through a subsequent “recall application.”
The apex court allowed the appeal filed by the original complainant, Jagdish Godara, and quashed the directions of the High Court that had protected the accused for 30 days and advised him to seek pre-arrest bail.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from FIR No. 03/2022, registered at P.S. Matoda, District Jodhpur Rural, based on a complaint by Jagdish Godara. The FIR was filed against the second respondent and two co-accused, Satyaprakash and Maghraj, under Sections 365, 342, 376(2)(n), 376-D, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the complaint, the appellant’s sister (the victim) was abducted and subjected to rape by the accused persons. The victim narrated that on January 6, 2022, co-accused Maghraj forcibly took her to a location and raped her. She was later taken to co-accused Satyaprakash’s house, where he also committed rape, causing her to lose consciousness. The victim further stated that the second respondent had also raped her in a school a few days prior to the incident and that all three accused had been repeatedly raping her for the past three years.
After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on April 6, 2022, only against co-accused Satyaprakash, while the investigation against the second respondent and Maghraj was kept pending. The second respondent’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur, on May 13, 2022, noting the gravity of the offence and the necessity of his custodial interrogation.
Proceedings Before the High Court
Subsequently, the second respondent filed a petition (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 330/2023) under Section 482 CrPC before the Rajasthan High Court, seeking the quashing of the FIR. The High Court, by a common order on February 4, 2025, dismissed this petition, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence that warranted further judicial inquiry.
Instead of challenging this dismissal before the Supreme Court, the second respondent filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 235 of 2025 before the High Court, seeking to recall the order of February 4, 2025. In this recall application, the High Court passed the impugned final order on July 11, 2025.
While disposing of the application, the High Court granted liberty to the second respondent to seek pre-arrest bail and directed the Sessions Court to consider both the initial and subsequent investigation reports. Crucially, the High Court directed that the accused “shall not be arrested in connection with the above-mentioned FIR” for the next 30 days to enable him to take legal recourse.
Appellant’s Arguments in the Supreme Court
The appellant, represented by counsel, contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had erred on three main grounds:
- After dismissing the original petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court had become functus officio and lacked the jurisdiction to review or recall its order.
- The recall application was erroneously assigned a new case number (S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 235 of 2025), treating it as a fresh matter instead of an application in the already decided petition.
- The High Court, despite not formally recalling its earlier order, effectively granted relief to the second respondent by suggesting he seek pre-arrest bail and granting him 30 days of protection from arrest, which was wholly erroneous.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court found significant force in the appellant’s submissions. The bench concluded that the High Court had indeed erred on all three counts. In its judgment, the Court observed, “We find that the High Court erred in all the aforesaid three counts, inasmuch as having become functus officio when it dismissed the original petition under Section 482 CrPC, it did not have any power or jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking review/recall of the said order.”
The Court further noted that the High Court should have simply dismissed the recall application if it was not inclined to entertain it. Instead, it proceeded to grant substantive relief. The judgment stated, “More importantly, once the High Court was not inclined to grant any relief in the application seeking recall/review of its original order…, it ought not to have suggested or advised the second respondent herein to seek pre-arrest bail and secondly, protected him for a period of thirty days from the date of the said order.”
The Supreme Court also took into account that an earlier anticipatory bail application by the second respondent had already been dismissed by the Sessions Court, an order which he never challenged.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of the High Court’s order dated July 11, 2025, which contained the directions for seeking pre-arrest bail and the 30-day protection from arrest.
While allowing the appeal, the Court clarified that if any separate appeal regarding a subsequent bail application is pending before the High Court, it “shall be considered by the High Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.” Reserving liberty for the second respondent, the Court added, “On the request made by learned counsel for the second respondent herein, liberty is reserved to the second respondent herein to seek regular bail if so advised.”
