2025 Supreme(SC) 1244

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Vikram Bakshi and Others – Appellants
Versus
R.P. Khosla and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3646 of 2025 [SLP (Criminal) No. 3425 of 2022]
Decided On : 20-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Section 362 of Cr.P.C. explicitly prohibits court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or reviewing said Judgment or Order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error – This prohibition is complete and no criminal court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed – In exceptional cases, “procedural review” is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it.
(2) Proceeding initiated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is in nature of criminal proceeding and governed by provisions of Cr.P.C. Proceeding initiated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is in nature of criminal proceeding and governed by provisions of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 362 [Section 403 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Except for clerical and arithmetical error, no court shall alter or review its judgment – Cr.P.C. does not authorize High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction – Section 362 explicitly prohibits court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or reviewing said Judgment or Order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error – This prohibition is complete and no criminal court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed – In exceptional cases, “procedural review” is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it – “Substantive review” is when error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on face of record – It is in latter sense, no review lies on merits unless specifically provided under a statute. (Paras 27, 28 and 31)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 362 and 482 [Sections 403 and 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Criminal courts, as envisaged under Cr.P.C. are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for exceptions which are explicitly provided by statute, like, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error – As courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, bar of Section 362 Cr.P.C. becomes applicable, this, despite powers provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which, this veil cannot allow courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar – It is only in situations wherein application for recall of an order or judgment seeking “procedural review” that bar would not apply and not a substantive review” where bar as contained in Section “362 Cr.P.C. is attracted – Review is permissible where court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so and and/or mistake on part of court caused prejudice to a party – All these exceptions are only exercisable for seeking recall or review of an order or judgment, if a ground that is raised was not available or existent at the time of original proceedings before Court – Mere fact that said ground, although available, was not raised or pressed during concerned proceedings, does not provide for an exemption to parties to assert it as a ground – Said power cannot be invoked as a means to circumvent finality of judicial process or mistakes and/or errors in decision which are attributable to a conscious omission by parties. (Paras 34 and 34A)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 340 and 362 [Sections 379 and 403 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Nature of proceeding is determined by its substance and consequences it may result into – Section 340 of Cr.P.C. empowers court that such determination may be done by way of holding preliminary inquiry to ascertain sufficient material to justify initiation of prosecution against accused – Nature of such inquiry is not administrative or mere procedural – Proceeding initiated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is in nature of criminal proceeding and governed by provisions of Cr.P.C. as a consequence, thereof, all procedural safeguards, consequences, and effects thereto associated with a criminal proceeding under Cr.P.C. are also attracted to it – Considering that proceedings initiated under section 340 of Cr.P.C. are of criminal nature and governed by provisions of Cr.P.C. which is a self-contained Code, there is no scope for application of provisions of any other procedural law until specifically provided under such law – CPC 1908 does not expressly provide for a provision wherein a review can be filed in proceedings of criminal nature initiated under Cr.P.C. – Impugned Order, being antithetical to law as laid down by Apex Court relating to Section 362 of Cr.P.C., ought to be set aside. (Paras 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45)

Facts of the case:

Primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is “whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is permissible or not?”

Findings of Court:

Such an act to undermine finality of judicial proceedings cannot be permitted especially in such situations of deliberate omissions or misrepresentation on the part of parties before court and thereafter attempting to defend themselves and obtaining verboten order dated 05.05.2021, substantially reviewing and recalling Judgment dated 13.08.2020, under garb of “procedural review” which is impermissible.

Result : Appeal allowed.