Holding

A criminal court has no power to recall or review its own judgment; it may only correct clerical errors, rendering the High Court's recall and transfer order invalid.

Summary

The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, lodged FIRs alleging threats and interference in his granite mining business by a former minister and police officials, and sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI. He first filed a criminal writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. He then filed a second petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) with identical prayers, and the High Court initially ordered only a representation to the Superintendent of Police. The High Court later recalled that order, claiming a clerical mistake, and directed the investigation to be transferred to the CBI. The Supreme Court held that a criminal court cannot review or recall its own judgment except to correct clerical errors, and found no such error in the earlier order; consequently, the High Court's recall and the transfer order were quashed. The appeal was allowed, and the complainant was permitted to challenge the earlier orders through appropriate legal remedies.

Issues considered

Whether the Rajasthan High Court was justified in recalling and reviewing its earlier order under its inherent jurisdiction s.528 BNSS (s.482 CrPC).
Whether a criminal court may review its own judgment absent a clerical error.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 403, s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 362, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS [s.482 CrPC] Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 362 – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.528, 403 – High Court – Court not to alter judgment – Writ petition by the complainant for transfer of investigation of the FIR lodged by him, dismissed as withdrawn – Complainant filed second petition with identical prayers which was disposed of by a reasoned order – Said order

Subjects

Review its earlier ordersTransfer of investigation of the FIRDismissed as withdrawnSecond petition with identical prayersReasoned order recalled and reviewed by the High CourtCorrect or rectify clerical errorsInherent jurisdictionClerical mistake

Judgment

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 354 : 2025 INSC 1205

State of Rajasthan
v.
Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 4380-4381 of 2025)
08 October 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in reviewing
its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS
[s.482 CrPC]

Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 362 – Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.528, 403 – Saving of inherent power
of High Court – Court not to alter judgment – Writ petition
by the complainant for transfer of investigation of the FIR
lodged by him, dismissed as withdrawn – Complainant filed
second petition with identical prayers which was disposed of
by a reasoned order – Said order recalled and reviewed by
the High Court – Sustainability:
Held: Criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own
judgment – Only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical
errors by virtue of s.403 BNSS [s.362 CrPC] – On facts, once the
Writ Petition preferred by the complainant with identical prayers
had been dismissed as withdrawn, without there being any liberty
to approach the High Court again for seeking self-same relief,
the subsequent petition could not have been entertained under
the garb of exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS [s.482
CrPC] – Attempt so made was nothing but a change in the label
of the petition with the substance being the same – From a
bare perusal of the order passed in the second writ petition, it is
crystal clear that the said order did not suffer from any clerical
error so as to justify the invocation of jurisdiction by the High
Court to recall or review the same – Observations made by
Single Judge in the recall order that a clerical mistake occurred
while passing the earlier order is not borne out from the record

* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 355

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

because the said order was passed after considering the entirety
of facts and circumstances prevailing on record – No apparent
or manifest error what to say of clerical error in the said order
which could justify the recalling or modification thereof – As a
matter of fact, once the writ petition filed by the complainant had
been dismissed, another petition seeking the same relief, styling
it to be a petition u/s.528 BNSS [s.482 CrPC], could not have
been entertained – Only remedy available to the complainant in
such circumstances would be to assail the order dismissed as
withdrawn as per law – Thus, the impugned orders do not stand
to scrutiny and are quashed – However, the complainant given
liberty to take recourse to the suitable remedy for challenging
the said orders. [Paras 25-27]

Case Law Cited
Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another
[1990] 1 SCR 788 : (1990) 2 SCC 437 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Review its earlier orders; Transfer of investigation of the FIR;
Dismissed as withdrawn; Second petition with identical prayers;
Reasoned order; Reasoned order recalled and reviewed by the
High Court; Correct or rectify clerical errors; Inherent jurisdiction;
Clerical mistake.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
4380-4381 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2025 and 24.01.2025 of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCRMP
No. 287 of 2025 and SBCRLMP No. 287 of 2025, respectively
With
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 3308-3309 and 3310-3311 of
2025
356 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.,
Maninder Singh, Shoeb Alam, Sr. Advs., Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal,
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Rohit K. Singh, Gaurav Khanna, Pritam Bishwas,
Gautam Barnwal, Vijay Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Brijender Chahar, A.S.G., Shiv
Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., H.D. Thanvi,
Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Mrs. Samprati Bhattmewara, Vivek Gupta,
Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Rajat Nair, Purnendu Bajpai, Chitvan Singhal, Ishaan
Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal, Vinay Kumar Singh, Arpit Bamal, Ashzad
Mubarak.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before us for assailing the
orders dated 24th January, 2025 and 4th February, 2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur1
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60 of 2025 and S.B. Criminal
Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025. Vide the first order, the High Court
recalled its earlier order dated 16th January, 2025 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025 and restored the said petition
to its original number. Vide the second order, the High Court allowed
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025 and directed transfer of
investigation in FIR No. 202 of 2024, P.S. Kareda, District Bhilwara,
and FIR No. 234 of 2024, P.S. Kareda, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 357

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

filed by respondent No. 1-Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi2 to the Central
Bureau of Investigation3.
4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the
instant appeals are noted hereinbelow.
5. The respondent-complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Mandal, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan, which was
forwarded to the P.S., Kareda, District Bhilwara under Section 156(3)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734 and as a consequence thereof,
FIR No. 211 of 2023 came to be registered at the said police station
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384, 379 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18605.
6. It was inter alia alleged in the FIR that the respondent-complainant
had a business of granite mining, and a lease had been sanctioned
in his favour by the Mineral Department in the year 2012 for mining
of granite in village Raghunathpur, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara.
The complainant had been doing the business of mining of minerals
in Raghunathpur in the name and style of M/s. Black Mount Granite
Private Limited. He was the promoter and Director of the said company.
7. He procured another mining lease for granite mining in village
Raghunathpur through lease number 67/12. In this lease, the
business was being carried out in the name and style of M/s. Aravali
Granimarmo Private Limited wherein the complainant was a Director,
and the owners were Shyam Sundar Goyal and Chandrakant Shukla.
These two owners demanded a sum of Rs. 10 crores from the
complainant for registration of the company. Pursuant to the above
transaction, 50% shares of the company were transferred by Shyam
Sundar Goyal and Chandrakant Shukla to the complainant and his
wife, Bhavya Joshi.
8. The owners, Shyam Sundar Goyal and Chandrakant Shukla sold
the remaining shares to accused No. 4, Mr. Ramlal Jat, for a sum of
Rs. 5 crores. The said Ramlal Jat, in turn, got the shares transferred
to his relatives, Mona Chaudhary and Suresh Kumar. However, when

2 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent-complainant’ or ‘complainant’.
3 For short, “CBI”
4 For short, ‘CrPC’.
5 For short “IPC”
358 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the deal subsequently fell through, accused No. 4, Mr. Ramlal Jat,
who was the Revenue Minister in the State Government, got annoyed
and threatened the complainant that if he demanded any money for
the transfer of shares, he would blow up the mines with dynamite,
make the life of the complainant’s family miserable, and ensure that
the complainant would never be allowed to enter District Bhilwara
again. The said accused also threatened that the Director General
of Police and the Inspector General of Police were on his beck and
call and that he would also take over the other mineral leases of the
complainant being operated in the name and style of M/s. Black Mount
Granite as well. On 17th June 2022, the labourers of the complainant
were also threatened by accused Nos. 4 and 5 of getting them locked
up in the police station. The minerals and equipment including the
vehicles lying in the mining area were stolen. The CCTV cameras
installed at the site along with the DVR were detached and taken
away. The complainant conveyed the information of these incidents
to the Director General of Police, Jaipur via e-mail dated 18th June,
2022, but no action was forthcoming on his complaint. He also sent
an information to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and the SHO,
P.S., Kareda by Registered AD post but to no avail. He personally
went to P.S. Kareda to report the matter but was threatened with
dire consequences.
9. Pursuant to completion of investigation in FIR No. 211 of 2023, police
filed a negative report in the matter concluding that the allegations
were not made out and the dispute appeared to be civil in nature.
The respondent-complainant thereafter filed a protest petition against
the negative report, which is currently pending adjudication.
10. During the pendency of the aforesaid protest petition, the respondent-
complainant filed 2 more applications under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The aforesaid applications were allowed and FIR No. 202 of 20246
and FIR No. 234 of 20247 came to be registered at P.S. Kareda,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
11. It seems that as per the complainant, investigation was not being
carried out fairly pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIRs at

6 Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 425, 427, 217, 218, 34 and 120B of IPC.
7 Under Sections 303(2), 333, 305(a), and 60(a) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. [Sections 379, 452, 380
and 120B of IPC]
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 359

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

P.S. Kareda, whereupon the complainant filed a writ petition being
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 dated 17th October,
2024 in the High Court wherein the following prayers were made: -
“PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc.
petition may kindly be allowed and relief may be given
as under:
1. That the investigation in FIR no. 202/2024 and FIR
No. 234/2024 registered at P.S. Kareda, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan may kindly be transferred from Local
Police Station to Independent Investigating Agencies
Namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any
other independent agency which is free from political
influence.
2. That the Investigating Authorities may kindly be directed
to carry out the investigation fairly and impartially.
3. That the Investigation Authorities may be directed to
file chargesheet against the accused persons after
considering all the material evidences produced by
the petitioner.
4. That the accused persons may kindly be directed to
not affect the investigation in the present FIR.”
12. It seems that the learned Single Judge was not persuaded to pass
any positive direction in the aforesaid writ petition on which the
learned counsel representing the complainant sought withdrawal of
the writ petition which was dismissed as such vide order dated 23rd
October, 2024. The aforesaid order is extracted below for the sake
of ready reference: -
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this
criminal writ petition.
Hence, this criminal writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
13. The complainant again approached the High Court by filing a petition
under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 20238

8 For short, “BNSS”
360 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

[Section 482 CrPC] being S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025.
Almost similar prayers as were made in the criminal writ petition
were also made in the aforesaid petition filed by the respondent-
complainant, which are extracted below for sake of ready reference: -
“PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc.
petition may kindly be allowed and relief may be given
as under:
1. That the investigation in FIR No. 202/2024 and FIR No.
234/2024 registered at P.S. Kareda, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
may kindly be transferred from Local Police Station to
Independent Investigating Agencies Namely Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other independent
agency which is free from political influence.
2. That the Investigating Authorities may kindly be directed
to carry out the investigation fairly and impartially.
3. That the Investigation Authorities may be directed to file
charge sheet against the accused persons after considering
all the material evidences produced by the petitioner.
4. That the accused persons may kindly be directed to
the investigation in the present FIR.”
14. It is undisputed that the complainant did not even plead in this petition
that there had been any change of circumstances pursuant to the
dismissal of his earlier criminal writ petition by way of withdrawal.
The aforesaid miscellaneous petition preferred by the complainant
came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court vide order dated 16th January, 2025 which reads as below: -
“3. Seeking fair impartial and expeditious investigation
is a fundamental right of a person, be he a complainant/
victim or the accused. It is therefore directed that the
petitioner shall submit a representation to the concerned
Superintendent of Police along with all documents on
which he places reliance. The concerned Superintendent of
Police is expected to consider the averments made in the
representation and shall instruct the Investigating Officer
of this case to conduct fair and impartial investigation and
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 361

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

submit the result of the investigation as expeditiously as
possible.
4. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is disposed of.
5. The stay petition also stands disposed of.”
15. A bare reading of the aforesaid order would make it crystal clear
that the High Court was not persuaded to accept the prayer of the
respondent-complainant for transfer of investigation to the CBI or
any other agency and simply a liberty was given to the respondent-
complainant to approach the Superintendent of Police by way of a
representation and the Superintendent of Police, in turn was advised
to consider the representation and direct the investigating officer of
the case to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the matter
and submit the report thereof as expeditiously as possible.
16. There was no ambiguity or anomaly whatsoever in this order which
granted a limited relief of making a representation to the respondent-
complainant.
17. Very surprisingly, a miscellaneous application being S.B. Criminal
Misc. Application No. 60 of 2025 seeking modification/correction
came to be filed within a few days of the order dated 16th January,
2025 wherein, the following averments were made: -
“3. That it is pertinent to note that the present misc. petition
has been filed praying therein to transfer the investigation
to any independent bodies like CBI or transferring the
investigation to the SOG as the accused persons are
higher police officials and are also having political influence.
Therefore, the same would suggest that a fair and impartial
investigation cannot be held by the police officials who are
subordinate to the accused persons.
4. That the petitioner has also relief of fair and impartial
investigation in two matters i.e. FIR 202/2024 P.S. Kareda
and FIR 234/2024 P.S. Kareda. However, the Hon’ble Court
has only directed the respondent to Fairly Investigate in
only one FIR.
5. That the matter was argued before the Hon’ble Court
and the Ld. Court was pleased to consider the averments
of the petitioner, however, when the order was passed the
362 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Hon’ble Court has not transferred the investigation to any
independent agency.
6. That it is humbly submitted that the purpose of filing
the misc. petition would vitiate if the relief as prayed is
not granted to the petitioner.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, may most respectfully prayed that this
application may kindly be allowed and the order dated
16.01.2025 may be modified and the prayer sought by the
petitioner in the Misc. Petition may be granted as relief
to the Petitioner.
Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be
passed.”
18. The most material fact which can be discerned from the contents of
the application is that the applicant did not make even a semblance
of assertion that the order dated 16th January, 2025 suffered from
any typographical error or inadvertent mistake. What was specifically
pleaded in the application was that the High Court did not accede to
the prayers made in the miscellaneous petition and thus, the Court
should feel persuaded to direct modification in the order dated 16th
January, 2025 and accede to the prayer of the complainant for transfer
of investigation to the CBI. The learned Single Judge, proceeded to
entertain the aforesaid S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60 of 2025
and sought for the affidavit of the investigating officer. Accordingly, vide
order dated 24th January, 2025, the High Court proceeded to recall
the order dated 16th January, 2025 with the following observations: -
“2.1. Indeed, due to inadvertence, a clerical mistake
has occurred in the order above. The Misc. Petition
was though filed for issuance of directions to conduct
investigation fairly and impartially but there was a prayer
to transfer the investigation from the State police to any
other independent agency like CBI. The prayer therein
was made on serious aspersions of political influence and
with the specific averment that the accused of this case
has a close connection with the top notch Senior Police
Officer and involvement of a former Cabinet Minister
having influence over the area. The petitioner seems to
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 363

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

be aggrieved by the conduct and manner of the present
investigation and, therefore, he made a prayer to transfer
the case to any other independent agency.
2.2. 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. The outcome
does not address the grievance raised by the petitioner
in the main petition and he has been deprived of getting
justice.
2.3. To err, is human but an (sic.) error committed due
to inadvertence cannot be perpetuated. The Courts are
meant to impart justice and not supposed to sticks to the
processual intricacies and technicalities of the matter.
3. In this view of the matter, the instant Misc. Application
is allowed and the order dated 16.01.2025 passed in
SBCRLMP No.287/2025 is recalled. The Registry is directed
to restore/ re-register the Misc. Petition No.287/2025 to its
original number and list the matter on 28.01.2025.
4. In the meantime, learned Public Prosecutor is directed
to procure the latest factual report and respond on the
petition.”
19. After obtaining the affidavit of the investigating officer, the learned
Single Judge, proceeded to pass the contentious impugned order
dated 4th February, 2025 whereby the investigation of the FIRs came
to be transferred to the CBI. It is amply clear that in passing the order
dated 4th February, 2025 the High Court has virtually reviewed its own
order dated 16th January, 2025 on the premise that the said order
seemed to be a result of an inadvertent clerical mistake and that
the same did not address the grievances raised by the respondent-
complainant in the main petition.
20. Ex-facie, the reasons assigned by the High Court in the order dated
24th January, 2025, for recalling the order dated 16th January, 2025 are
erroneous on the face of the record. There was neither any clerical
mistake nor any inadvertent error in the order dated 16th January,
2025 which granted the limited relief of making a representation to
the respondent-complainant. The complainant did not even plead in
364 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the miscellaneous application seeking clarification/modification that
the order dated 16th January, 2025 was passed mistakenly or that
the same suffered from some clerical error. He claimed for review
of the earlier order, plain and simple.
21. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the
appellant-State assisted by Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma A.A.G,
vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned order is
unsustainable in the eyes of law because the High Court has
proceeded to review its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] which is impermissible.
He urged that S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 and S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025 were filed with identical prayers
and the High Court was not persuaded to accept the prayer made
by the complainant on which, the writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 23rd October, 2024. Just a few days after
such dismissal and without there being any change in circumstances,
the miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482
CrPC] came to be filed with identical prayers which was also disposed
of by a reasoned order dated 16th January, 2025. The said reasoned
order had been recalled and reviewed by the High Court vide orders
dated 24th January, 2025 and 4th February, 2025 respectively which
are grossly illegal and without jurisdiction.
22. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel representing
the respondent-complainant, supported the impugned orders and
urged that the complainant had raised serious issues regarding the
unfairness of investigation. It was highlighted in the petitions that
the investigation was being influenced by accused No. 4, Mr. Ramlal
Jat, who was a Minister in the erstwhile Government. Furthermore,
the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police
were also showing keen interest to scuttle the genuine prosecution
launched by the complainant who was compelled to approach the
High Court for seeking justice. The dismissal of the writ petition
would not preclude the complainant from approaching the High Court
afresh because after such dismissal, vide order dated 23rd October,
2024, no steps were being taken by the investigating officer and a
biased approach was being adopted to favour the accused persons
and thus, the complainant had valid and strong grounds for invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court by filing the S.B. Criminal
Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 365

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

23. He urged that the High Court balanced the equities by recalling the
order dated 16th January, 2025 and issuing a direction to the CBI
for investigation of the grave crimes alleged in the FIRs. As per
Mr. Dave, the said direction would not cause prejudice to any party
because the CBI would be the only agency expected to conduct a
fair and impartial investigation, in the peculiar facts of the case. He
thus, urged that the order under challenge does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
24. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on
record. We have also carefully perused the orders passed by the
High Court. The written submissions filed by learned counsel for the
respondent-complainant were also perused.
25. Ex facie, we are of the opinion that once S.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No. 2244 of 2024 preferred by the complainant with identical prayers
had been dismissed as withdrawn, without there being any liberty
to approach the High Court again for seeking self-same relief, the
subsequent petition could not have been entertained under the garb
of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [Section
482 CrPC]. The attempt so made was nothing but a change in the
label of the petition with the substance being the same.
26. 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]. In this regard, we
may gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Simrikhia v. Dolley
Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another9, the relevant
portions whereof are quoted below for ease of reference:
“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706, this Court
held that Section 561A preserves the inherent power of
the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure
the ends of justice and the High Court must therefore
exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation

9 (1990) 2 SCC 437.
366 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. In that case the facts
and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent
application were clearly different from what they were at
the time of the earlier application. The question as to the
scope and ambit of the inherent power of the High Court
vis-a-vis an earlier order made by it was, therefore, not
concluded by this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be
invoked to override bar of review u/s 362. It is clearly
stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 50 that
the inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for
doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The
law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be
exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account
of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court
is not empowered to review its own decision under the
purported exercise of inherent power. We find that the
impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the
earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials.
The High Court has grievously erred in doing so. Even on
merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to quash
the proceedings at that stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)

27. From a bare perusal of the order dated 16th January, 2025 it is crystal
clear that the said order did not suffer from any clerical error so as
to justify the invocation of jurisdiction by the High Court to recall or
review the same. The observations made by the learned Single Judge
in the recall order dated 24th January, 2025 that a clerical mistake
occurred while passing the earlier order dated 16th January, 2025 is
not borne out from the record because the said order was passed
after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances prevailing
on record. There was no apparent or manifest error what to say of
clerical error in the said order which could justify the recalling or
modification thereof.
28. As a matter of fact, we are of the opinion that once the writ petition
being S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 filed by the
complainant had been dismissed, another petition seeking the same
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 367

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

relief, styling it to be a petition under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482
CrPC], could not have been entertained. The only remedy available
to the complainant in such circumstances would be to assail the
order dated 23rd October, 2024 as per law, if so desired.
29. As a result, the impugned orders dated 24th January, 2025 and 4th
February, 2025 do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed.
30. However, considering the gravity of allegations, the complainant is
given liberty to take recourse to the suitable remedy for challenging
the orders dated 23rd October, 2024 and 16th January, 2025 as per
law, if so desired.
31. The appeals are allowed, accordingly.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3308-3309 OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3310-3311 OF 2025
33. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeals @ SLP(Criminal)
No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025, nothing survives for consideration of this
Court in these special leave petitions which are dismissed as such.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Matters disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain