Supreme Court | Criminal Court Cannot Recall or Review Its Judicial Order Beyond Clerical Corrections | Quashes Rajasthan High Court’s Recall and CBI Transfer in Granite Mining Dispute
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order transferring to the CBI the investigation of two FIRs arising from a granite-mining dispute in Bhilwara. Reiterating that a High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot recall or review its own judicial order except to correct a purely clerical or accidental error, the apex court held that the High Court had acted beyond its authority by invoking Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) to revisit its earlier directive. The Court restored the original order that had merely directed the complainant to approach the Superintendent of Police for a fair and impartial investigation.
The dispute originated from complaints lodged by a mining company promoter in Bhilwara, Rajasthan, alleging threats, extortion, and interference in the operation of granite mining leases. The complainant, associated with companies engaged in granite extraction, alleged that co-owners and a former state minister demanded substantial sums for share transfers and subsequently issued threats to disrupt mining activities. It was alleged that the minister threatened to use his influence over senior police officials to seize the complainant’s other mining leases and obstruct operations. Incidents reported included theft of minerals and equipment, removal of CCTV cameras, and intimidation of labourers.
An initial FIR was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code for cheating, criminal breach of trust, theft, extortion, and conspiracy. After the police submitted a negative report stating the matter was civil in nature, the complainant filed a protest petition. During its pendency, two further FIRs were registered under sections of the IPC and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning allegations of fraudulent share transfers and obstruction.
The complainant first sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI through a writ petition, which was withdrawn after the High Court declined to grant the relief. A subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC (later Section 528 BNSS) sought the same relief. By an order dated 16 January 2025, the High Court directed the complainant to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police for a fair investigation. Shortly thereafter, on 24 January 2025, the High Court recalled this order, stating it was a clerical mistake, and later, on 4 February 2025, directed that the investigation be transferred to the CBI.
The State of Rajasthan challenged these subsequent High Court orders before the Supreme Court, contending that the recall amounted to an impermissible review of a judicial order.
The Supreme Court recorded 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].”
It stated that “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].”
Referring to its earlier decision in Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, the Court quoted: “The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review… The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.”
On examining the High Court’s actions, the Supreme Court observed: “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.”
It further stated: “The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the recall order dated 24th January, 2025 that a clerical mistake occurred… is not borne out from the record because the said order was passed after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances prevailing on record.”
The Court concluded that “the attempt so made was nothing but a change in the label of the petition with the substance being the same” and that the High Court’s subsequent orders recalling and transferring the investigation to the CBI were “erroneous on the face of the record.”
The Supreme Court directed: “The impugned orders dated 24th January, 2025 and 4th February, 2025 do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed.” It restored the High Court’s earlier order of 16 January 2025, which had only required the complainant to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police for fair investigation.
“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.”
“The appeals are allowed, accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” The related special leave petitions were also dismissed in light of the main decision.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri Shiv Mangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents: Shri Siddharth Dave, Senior Advocate
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1205
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2797–2798 of 2025); with SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3308–3309 of 2025 and 3310–3311 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath; Justice Sandeep Mehta
