Appeal against the order transferring the case to CBI
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 Jodhpur 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 filed by respondent No. 1-Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Respondent/complainant filed section 156(3) Cr.P.C and same was pleased to allowed
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, 1973 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, 1860.
Facts
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 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.
Police filed negative report and protest petition is pending adjudication
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
Complainant filed a Writ petition
11. It seems that as per the complainant, investigation was not being carried out fairly pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIRs at 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: –
“…………….”
Complainant withdrew Writ application
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.”
Complainant again approached High Court under section 528 BNSS
13. The complainant again approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 20238 [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: –
“………..”
Hon’ble High Court directed the complainant to approach the S.P
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.
A modification/correction petition came to be filed
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: –
“……….”
Hon’ble High Court has transferred the investigation to CBI
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.
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.
Criminal court has no power to recall or review its own judgment except to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS (section 362 Cr.P.C)
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 Another, 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 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)
Earlier order of the High Court did not suffer from any clerical error
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.
Once a Writ petition is dismissed, another petition under section 528 BNSS on the same facts could not have been entertained
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 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.
Conclusion
29. As a result, the impugned orders dated 24th January, 2025 and 4th February, 2025 do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed.
Liberty to take recourse to a suitable remedy
30. However, considering the gravity of allegations, the complainant is given liberty to take recourse to the suitable remedy for challenging the orders dated
Judgment involved/cited
- Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another, (1990) 2 SCC 437
- Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706
- Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500
Acts and Sections involved/cited
- Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
- Section 403 (Corresponds to old Section 362 CrPC): This section, which bars a criminal court from reviewing or altering its judgment (except for clerical errors), was the core legal principle violated by the High Court.
- Section 528 (Corresponds to old Section 482 CrPC): Pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice. The second petition for the same relief was filed under this section, which the Supreme Court ruled could not override the bar under Section 403.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 156(3): The provision under which the complainant filed applications leading to the registration of FIR No. 202 of 2024 and FIR No. 234 of 2024.
- Section 362 (Old Code): Mentioned as the provision corresponding to Section 403 BNSS, which prohibits the review of criminal judgments.
- Section 482 (Old Code): Mentioned as the provision corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
Party
State of Rajasthan (Appellant) versus Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others (Respondent) – Criminal Appeal No(s). 4380 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025) – 2025 INSC 1205 – October 08, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, J. and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, J.
