Supreme Court | Criminal Courts Cannot Review or Recall Own Judgments | Only Clerical or Arithmetical Errors Permissible Under Section 362 CrPC
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that criminal courts, including High Courts, cannot review or recall their own judgments or orders under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated 05 May 2021, which had recalled its earlier decision and revived perjury proceedings. The Supreme Court directed that the impugned order was antithetical to established law and, therefore, unsustainable.
The dispute arises from a long-standing conflict between two groups, namely, the Khosla Group, comprising Mr. R.P. Khosla, his son Mr. Deepak Khosla, and his daughter-in-law Ms. Sonia Khosla, and the Bakshi Group, represented by Mr. Vikram Bakshi, Mr. Vinod Surha, and Mr. Wadia Prakash. The dispute centered on the development of a resort project at Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh, undertaken on land owned by the Khosla Group, with the Bakshi Group responsible for financing and management.
A Memorandum of Understanding was executed on 21 December 2005 between the parties for the project. Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, served as the special purpose vehicle. On 31 March 2006, an agreement was executed transferring 51% shareholding in MRPL from the Khosla Group to Mr. Vikram Bakshi, following which Mr. Surha and Mr. Prakash were appointed as directors of MRPL.
Disputes soon arose, leading Ms. Sonia Khosla to file Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleging oppression and mismanagement. She claimed her shareholding had been unlawfully reduced and sought removal of Bakshi Group directors. Interim orders were passed by the CLB on 24 December 2007 and 31 January 2008, maintaining status quo on shareholding and board composition.
Appeals filed before the Delhi High Court against the CLB’s orders were disposed of in April 2008 after parties agreed to maintain status quo and refer disputes to arbitration. Subsequent review petitions by the Khosla Group were dismissed.
The dispute escalated when Ms. Sonia Khosla alleged forgery of the AGM minutes of 30 September 2006 and moved applications under Section 340 CrPC before the CLB and the High Court seeking prosecution for perjury. Interim directions were issued by the Delhi High Court in February 2010, which were challenged by the Bakshi Group in the Supreme Court.
On 08 May 2014, the Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 6873 of 2010, recorded consent between parties and directed the CLB to decide Company Petition No. 114 of 2007, along with the Section 340 CrPC application, within six months. It restrained the High Court from proceeding with related perjury proceedings. The Court also directed the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime.
The High Court subsequently dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous (Co.) No. 3 of 2008 in line with the Supreme Court’s directions. A contempt petition alleging violation of earlier High Court orders was later withdrawn by the Khosla Group.
In 2019, the Khosla Group filed Criminal Miscellaneous (Co.) No. 4 of 2019 under Section 340 CrPC, alleging false affidavits by the Bakshi Group. The High Court dismissed the petition on 13 August 2020, noting the matter was before the NCLT, successor to CLB, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2014 directions.
The Khosla Group then filed a review under Order XLVII of the CPC, contending that Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 had been withdrawn on 07 February 2020, a fact not brought to the High Court’s attention. On 05 May 2021, the Delhi High Court recalled its earlier judgment of 13 August 2020 and restored the perjury petition for hearing. This recall order was challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered whether a review or recall of an order passed in criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC was permissible. The Bench recorded: “The law relating to power of a criminal court to review or alter its own judgment or order is governed by Section 362 of CrPC. The provision explicitly provides that except for clerical and arithmetical error, no court shall alter or review its judgment.”
The Court noted precedents, including State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, where it was held that CrPC does not authorize High Courts to review orders passed in appellate, revisional, or original jurisdiction. Similarly, in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, it was recorded: “Section 362 of CrPC is based on the acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court, in absence of specific statutory provisions, becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain fresh prayer for same relief.”
The Court distinguished between “procedural review” and “substantive review”: “A ‘procedural review’ is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it, however, a ‘substantive review’ is when error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that no review lies on merits unless specifically provided under a statute.”
It clarified that limited exceptions exist for recall: “A criminal court is empowered to alter or review its own judgment or a final order under Section 362 CrPC when the court lacked inherent jurisdiction, fraud or collusion was played, a mistake of court caused prejudice, or necessary parties were not served. These exceptions, however, cannot be invoked to circumvent the finality of judicial process.”
Applying this to the case, the Bench recorded: “Neither the Impugned Order falls within the ambit of ‘procedural review’ to not attract the bar of Section 362 CrPC, nor is it the case of the Khosla Group that they were either denied a hearing or were not given an opportunity to inform the court of the said development. It is pellucid that Ms. Sonia Khosla had herself withdrawn the Company Petition on 07.02.2020, more than six months before pronouncement of the Judgment dated 13.08.2020. It rather appears as an intentional attempt to mislead the court.”
The Court held that the High Court erred in exercising powers not available under law: “The petition filed by Khosla Group under provisions of CPC 1908 could not have been entertained by the High Court for being patently not maintainable. Such an act to undermine the finality of the judicial proceedings cannot be permitted especially in situations of deliberate omissions or misrepresentation on the part of the parties.”
The Supreme Court concluded by setting aside the Delhi High Court’s recall order dated 05 May 2021. It stated: “We cannot allow the Impugned Order dated 05.05.2021 to hold the field, being antithetical to the law as laid down by this Court relating to Section 362 of CrPC and, thus, ought to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shibu Devasia Olickal, AOR, Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jasdeep Dhillon, Adv., Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv., Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR
For the Respondents: M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR, Mr. Arpit Shukla, AOR, Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, AOR
Case Title: Vikram Bakshi and Others v. R.P. Khosla and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1020
Case Number: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 3425 of 2022
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
