Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 863

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Raghunath Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2656-5657 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.8101-8102 of 2019) With Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos of 2025 @ Diary No.34946 of 2019) and Criminal appeal nos. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.10274-10275 of 2019)
Decided On : 16-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.R.Takkar, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Ms. Shriya Takkar, Adv. Mr. Manan Takkar, Adv. Mrs. Unnati Anand, Adv. Mrs. V.santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Ms. Vineeta Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to revive quashed FIRs, as the judiciary becomes functus officio post-judgment, with an absolute bar to altering such judgments except for clerical errors.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Revival of FIR previously quashed - The High Court's order to restore FIR and direct investigation was based on a violation of compromise terms, which lacked legal basis - The inherent powers under Section 482 to alter a judgment are limited and do not extend to reviving quashed proceedings after compromise - The bar under Section 362 is nearly absolute, and inherent powers can only be invoked to meet ends of justice or to remedy abuse of process. (Paras 3, 12, 13)

(B) Judicial Authority - Courts become functus officio after signing a final order or judgment and cannot alter or review their own judgments except for clerical errors. (Para 9.1)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a judgment restoring an FIR that had been previously quashed due to a compromise between the parties, suggesting the lack of substantial grounds for revival.

Findings of Court:
The revival of the FIR was unauthorized, and violations of the compromise agreement do not justify reopening resolved matters as they must follow separate legal channels.

Issues: The core issue was whether the High Court had the authority to invoke Section 482 to revive a previously quashed FIR based on alleged violations of a compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the order quashing the FIR, emphasizing the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles of functus officio and inherent powers.

Result: Appeals allowed; the previous orders restoring the FIR were set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of the dispute and proceedings (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. question of legality of high court's order (Para 3 , 6)
3. analysis of section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
4. hearing on inherent jurisdiction has limitations. (Para 8)
5. limits of inherent powers and exceptions (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
6. final judgment and direction for high courts (Para 13 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.,

Criminal Appeals @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.8101-8102/2019

Leave Granted.

2. These appeals by special leave, call into question the correctness and legality of the judgment and orders dated 8th October 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No.11903 of 2018 in CRM No.M-23727 of 2015 and dated 29th April 2019 in CRM No.13134 of 2019 in CRM No.M-23727 of 2015, whereby FIR No.432 of 2014 dated 15th July 2014 which had earlier been quashed and set aside vide order 21st March 2016, was restored to file and concerned authorities were directed to restart the investigation. In other words, the order of quashment was recalled. Further, a review against this order of recall was also dismissed vide order dated 29th April 2019.

3. These appeals present a question of justified use or lack of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ¹[ Hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’] using which the High Court restored First Information Report previously quashed.

4. The genesis of the dispute is an agreement to sell entered into between the parties dated 21st May 2013, an agreement dated 25th May 2013, and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15th August 2013 as also agreement to sell dated 3rd January 2014. Various disputes arose in regard to these agreements and finally, with the intervention of elders and others, a fresh agreement to sell dated 15th April 2015 was entered into in supersession of all other agreements. Accordingly, the sale consideration was decided at Rs.2,25,00,000/-. Various methods were decided upon to transfer part of the said amount totalling to Rs.35 lakhs. The remaining Rs.1,90,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registry along with interest @ 1% per month. Also, pursuant to the fresh agreement to sell a compromise deed dated 14th July 2015 was inked with a view to bring all litigations between the parties to an end. Consequently, the order dated 21st March 2016 which quashed the proceedings came to be passed. The order is extracted in toto as under :

(Annexure P-1)

(Annexure P-2).

2. In compliance of order dated September 07, 2015, statement of the parties have been recorded by the trial Court. Report of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurgaon, has been received, in which it has been categorically observed that parties have arrived at compromise without any pressure or coercion from any quarter. Even otherwise, matter involved is personal in nature, which has been amicably put at rest.

4. Consequently, instant petition stands allowed, and FIR No.432, dated July 15, 2014, under Sections 406 , 420 of IPC, registered at Poli Station Sector 10, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.”

5. It, however, appears that the spirit of the compromise deed was lost upon the parties as soon after the order dated 21st March 2016, the complainant, namely, Krishan Kumar Gandhi filed an application dated 10th September 2016 praying for revival of the FIRs. Vide order dated 24th September 2016 said prayer was rejected. On 27th March 2018, another prayer of a similar nature seeking the revival of the FIRs was made before the High Court. By way of the impugned judgment and order dated 8th October