Back
Rajasthan HC Fixes '': Recalls Full FIR Quash After Partial Deal, Clarifies Recall Isn't Review
In a nuanced ruling that underscores the precision required in judicial orders, the , led by Justice Farjand Ali , has recalled a portion of its earlier decision that inadvertently quashed an entire FIR despite a compromise involving only two of the 15 accused. The bench allowed complainant Supriya's application in Supriya v. State of Rajasthan (2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 121), limiting relief to petitioner Jay Gehlot and Kaushal Sankhla while greenlighting probes against the rest.
From Property Feud to Courtroom Mix-Up
The saga began with FIR No. 390/2023 at Pratap Nagar PS, Jodhpur, stemming from a heated property dispute over plots. The complaint named 15 accused—including Deendayal Choudhary, Pintu Rajnat, Suresh Goyal, and others—for offenses under , covering rioting, hurt, assault, theft, mischief, and more.
Supriya and her family settled with Jay Gehlot and Kaushal Sankhla via a written compromise, handing over disputed plots and agreeing to drop proceedings against them in the larger interest of harmony. Gehlot filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 790/2024 under seeking FIR quashing, citing the deal and . On , the court quashed the FIR—but paragraph 7 mistakenly extended it to all accused , not just the compromising parties.
Supriya moved to recall this overreach via Criminal Misc. Application No. 147/2024, arguing her nod was limited. The court, after reviewing the compromise (Clauses 3-4) and a police report confirming 15 accused, agreed it was an "."
Complainant's Plea vs. Petitioner's Defense
Supriya, through counsel and , stressed the compromise's narrow scope: only Gehlot and Sankhla. She highlighted that 13 others hadn't sought relief or been heard, urging restoration of proceedings against them.
Gehlot's side, represented by , and the state via AGA , faced scrutiny. The court noted Gehlot's petition invoked inherent powers solely for himself, yet the order ballooned beyond intent. No strong counter from respondents is recorded, as the focus shifted to the lapse itself.
Drawing the Doctrinal Line: Recall Powers Unpacked
Justice Farjand Ali delved into legal theory, distinguishing
review
—a merit-based rehash on strict grounds like new evidence or apparent errors—from
recall
, a "
" fixing slips like "
" or
"
"
to match true intent.
Relying on
Gian Singh
for compromise-based quashing limits, the court held: the original aim was partial relief only. Fifteen non-petitioners weren't adjudicated; their blanket quashing was unintended. This wasn't review, but inherent correction to
"safeguard the purity of the judicial process."
As LiveLaw noted, the ruling affirms recall as a tool against "perpetuation of unintended consequences," preventing miscarriages without reopening merits.
Key Observations
"Recall does not involve a re-evaluation of the merits of the case nor does it amount to a judicial reconsideration of the conclusions previously arrived at. Rather, it is invoked in circumstances where the order of the Court has been affected by an inadvertent procedural irregularity, , clerical lapse, or a ..."
"The quashing of the FIR qua those accused persons was neither prayed for nor examined by this Court, and the inadvertent inclusion of their names within the ambit of the quashing order can only be attributed to a or mind ."
"...rectifying such an inadvertent error by recalling the relevant portion of the order does not amount to exercising the power of review, but rather constitutes a legitimate exercise of the Court’s to correct accidental or clerical mistakes..."
Order Restored: Partial Quash Stands, Probe Resumes
Paragraph 7 of the order stands recalled and modified: FIR quashing holds only for Jay Gehlot and Kaushal Sankhla . Investigators can proceed against the remaining 13 under law, unhindered.
This sets a precedent for precision in Section 482 orders—compromises bind narrowly—and empowers courts to self-correct without formal review, potentially streamlining dockets while upholding fairness. For multi-accused cases, it warns against overbroad relief, ensuring non-compromising parties face justice.
