IMPORTANT POINT
Power to review/recall judgment – Criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] cannot be exercised by Court to recall or review its own judgment.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

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 Jodhpur¹[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.] 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 Joshi²[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent-complainant’ or ‘complainant’.] to the Central Bureau of Investigation³[For short, “CBI”].

4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeals are noted hereinbelow.

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, 1973⁴[For short, ‘CrPC’.] 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 , 1860⁵[For short “IPC”].

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 a