Case Name: State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vikram Nath
Date of Judgment: 8 October 2025
Acts/Sections Referred: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Case Type: Criminal Procedure / Review / Recall of Order / Inherent Powers
1. Introduction
The case of State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi & Others arose from a procedural controversy concerning the power of a High Court to review or recall its own earlier reasoned order in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Rajasthan High Court had disposed of a criminal petition on 16 January 2025 by directing the Respondent to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police. The Respondent thereafter filed an application styled as a “modification/correction” application, which the High Court allowed by recalling its earlier order and subsequently transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a High Court possesses the power to review or recall a reasoned order passed in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, when the power of review is not expressly conferred by the Code.
2. Summary of Facts
The Respondent, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, operated two companies engaged in granite mining. He alleged that a former Revenue Minister and others had attempted to usurp his mining operations through threats, theft of minerals and equipment, and political influence over senior police officials. The Respondent’s initial complaints did not elicit satisfactory investigation. Through successive applications under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, three First Information Reports were ultimately registered.
The Respondent filed a criminal writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Importantly, this writ petition was withdrawn by the Respondent on 23 October 2024 without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a fresh criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the same relief. On 16 January 2025, the High Court disposed of this petition without transferring the investigation. The Respondent then filed a “modification/correction” application, which the High Court allowed by recalling its earlier order and directing transfer to the CBI by order dated 4 February 2025. The State of Rajasthan challenged these orders before the Supreme Court.
3. Issues Before the Court
(i) Whether a High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can review or recall an earlier reasoned order passed in the exercise of the same jurisdiction, when the statute does not expressly confer a power of review.
(ii) Whether the withdrawal of an earlier writ petition without liberty to refile precluded the Respondent from seeking the same relief through a fresh petition.
4. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Appellant State:
The State contended that courts do not possess inherent power to review or recall their own reasoned orders unless such power is expressly conferred by statute. The power of review is a creature of statute and must be distinguished from the power to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. In the present case, the “modification/correction” application contained no allegation of any clerical or typographical error but was a disguised application for review of a substantive decision. The State further argued that the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without liberty to refile precluded the Respondent from agitating the same cause of action through a fresh application.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the High Court had committed an inadvertent error in its original order and that the power to correct errors is an integral part of inherent jurisdiction. It was argued that the interest of justice required transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation given the political influence allegedly being exercised over the state police.
5. Reasonings and Findings
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders dated 24 January 2025 and 4 February 2025, restoring the original order dated 16 January 2025. The Court held that the power of review is a creature of statute and not an inherent judicial power. It does not exist unless expressly conferred by law. While courts may correct clerical or typographical errors in their orders, they cannot under the guise of “modification” or “correction” revisit and reverse a reasoned judicial decision on its merits.
The Court found that the “modification/correction” application filed by the Respondent contained no allegation of any clerical or typographical error in the original order. The application was in substance a review petition seeking reconsideration of the High Court’s substantive decision not to transfer the investigation. Such an application was not maintainable in the absence of a statutory power of review.
The Court also addressed the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition. It held that where a party withdraws a petition without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, that party is precluded from agitating the same grievance through a fresh petition. This principle serves the important purpose of preventing parties from repeatedly agitating the same issues before courts after an adverse outcome.
6. Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the recall and transfer orders of the High Court, and restored the original order directing the Respondent to approach the Superintendent of Police through a representation. The judgment provides a definitive ruling that the power of review is statutory and cannot be manufactured through the device of “modification” or “correction” applications where no clerical error exists. It also reaffirms the principle of finality of judicial orders and the bar against relitigating the same issues after withdrawal without liberty.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is the power of review in the context of judicial proceedings?
Review is the power of a court to reconsider and reopen a decision it has already made. Unlike the power of appeal or revision, which are exercised by superior courts, review is exercised by the same court that made the original decision. The power of review must be expressly conferred by statute and cannot be implied or created through the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Q2. Can an order be recalled under inherent jurisdiction?
A court exercising inherent jurisdiction may correct patent clerical or typographical errors in its orders, but it cannot recall or reverse a reasoned substantive order under the guise of correction. Where an application styled as a correction or modification seeks in substance to reverse a reasoned judicial decision, it amounts to an impermissible review and is not maintainable.
Q3. What are the consequences of withdrawing a petition without liberty to refile?
A party that withdraws a petition without obtaining the court’s permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action is thereafter precluded from agitating the same grievance through a new petition. This principle of finality prevents parties from forum-shopping and repeatedly litigating the same issues after adverse outcomes.
Q4. When may a High Court transfer investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation?
A High Court may direct transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when it is satisfied that the state police investigation is biased, influenced, or incapable of conducting a fair and impartial inquiry. Such transfer is an extraordinary remedy and must be justified by specific evidence of bias or inadequacy.
Q5. What is Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice.
