Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1205
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PARMESHWAR RAMLAL
JOSHI AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3308-
3309 OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3310-
3311 OF 2025
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2797-2798 of
2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
1. Heard.
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.10.08
16:50:11 IST
Reason:
1
2. Leave granted.
3. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before us for
th th
assailing the orders dated 24 January, 2025 and 4
February, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
1
of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur 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
th
16 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
2 3
Ramlal Joshi to the Central Bureau of Investigation .
4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and
essential for disposal of the instant appeals are noted
hereinbelow.
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
2
Hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent-complainant’ or
‘complainant’.
3
For short, “CBI”
2
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
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,
4
1973 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,
5
384, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
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
4
For short, ‘CrPC’.
5
For short “IPC”
3
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
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
4
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
threatened that the Director General of Police and the
Inspector General of Police were on his beck and call
and that he would also take over the other mineral
leases of the complainant being operated in the name
and style of M/s. Black Mount Granite as well. On
th
17 June 2022, the labourers of the complainant
were also threatened by accused Nos. 4 and 5 of
getting them locked up in the police station. The
minerals and equipment including the vehicles lying
in the mining area were stolen. The CCTV cameras
installed at the site along with the DVR were
detached and taken away. The complainant conveyed
the information of these incidents to the Director
th
General of Police, Jaipur e-mail dated 18 June,
via
2022, but no action was forthcoming on his
complaint. He also sent an information to the
Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and the SHO,
P.S., Kareda by Registered AD post but to no avail.
He personally went to P.S. Kareda to report the
matter but was threatened with dire consequences.
9. Pursuant to completion of investigation in FIR
No. 211 of 2023, police filed a negative report in the
matter concluding that the allegations were not made
out and the dispute appeared to be civil in nature.
5
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
The respondent-complainant thereafter filed a
protest petition against the negative report, which is
currently pending adjudication.
10. During the pendency of the aforesaid protest
petition, the respondent-complainant filed 2 more
applications under Section 156(3) CrPC. The
aforesaid applications were allowed and FIR No. 202
6 7
of 2024 and FIR No. 234 of 2024 came to be
registered at P.S. Kareda, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
11. It seems that as per the complainant,
investigation was not being carried out fairly
pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIRs at
P.S. Kareda, whereupon the complainant filed a writ
petition being S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of
th
2024 dated 17 October, 2024 in the High Court
wherein the following prayers were made: -
“PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
misc. petition may kindly be allowed and relief may
be given as under:
1. That the investigation in FIR no. 202/2024 and FIR
No. 234/2024 registered at P.S. Kareda, Bhilwara,
6
Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 425, 427, 217, 218, 34 and 120B of
IPC.
7
Under Sections 303(2), 333, 305(a), and 60(a) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. [Sections 379, 452, 380 and 120B of IPC]
6
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
Rajasthan may kindly be transferred from Local
Police Station to Independent Investigating Agencies
Namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any
other independent agency which is free from
political influence.
2. That the Investigating Authorities may kindly be
directed to carry out the investigation fairly and
impartially.
3. That the Investigation Authorities may be directed
to file chargesheet against the accused persons after
considering all the material evidences produced by
the petitioner.
4. That the accused persons may kindly be directed to
not affect the investigation in the present FIR.”
12. It seems that the learned Single Judge was not
persuaded to pass any positive direction in the
aforesaid writ petition on which the learned counsel
representing the complainant sought withdrawal of
the writ petition which was dismissed as such vide
rd
order dated 23 October, 2024. The aforesaid order
is extracted below for the sake of ready reference: -
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw this criminal writ petition.
Hence, this criminal writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.”
13. The complainant again approached the High
Court by filing a petition under Section 528 of
7
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
8
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
[Section 482 CrPC] being S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.)
No. 287 of 2025. Almost similar prayers as were made
in the criminal writ petition were also made in the
aforesaid petition filed by the respondent-
complainant, which are extracted below for sake of
ready reference: -
“PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
misc. petition may kindly be allowed and relief may
be given as under:
1. That the investigation in FIR No. 202/2024 and
FIR No. 234/2024 registered at P.S. Kareda,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan may kindly be transferred from
Local Police Station to Independent Investigating
Agencies Namely Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) or any other independent agency which is free
from political influence.
2. That the Investigating Authorities may kindly be
directed to carry out the investigation fairly and
impartially.
3. That the Investigation Authorities may be
directed to file charge sheet against the accused
persons after considering all the material evidences
produced by the petitioner.
4. That the accused persons may kindly be directed
to the investigation in the present FIR.”
14. It is undisputed that the complainant did not
even plead in this petition that there had been any
change of circumstances pursuant to the dismissal
8
For short, “BNSS”
8
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
of his earlier criminal writ petition by way of
withdrawal. The aforesaid miscellaneous petition
preferred by the complainant came to be disposed of
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide
th
order dated 16 January, 2025 which reads as
below: -
“3. Seeking fair impartial and expeditious
investigation is a fundamental right of a person, be
he a complainant/victim or the accused. It is
therefore directed that the petitioner shall submit a
representation to the concerned Superintendent of
Police along with all documents on which he places
reliance. The concerned Superintendent of Police is
expected to consider the averments made in the
representation and shall instruct the Investigating
Officer of this case to conduct fair and impartial
investigation and submit the result of the
investigation as expeditiously as possible.
4. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is
disposed of.
5. The stay petition also stands disposed of.”
15. A bare reading of the aforesaid order would
make it crystal clear that the High Court was not
persuaded to accept the prayer of the respondent-
complainant for transfer of investigation to the CBI or
any other agency and simply a liberty was given to
the respondent-complainant to approach the
Superintendent of Police by way of a representation
and the Superintendent of Police, in turn was advised
9
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
to consider the representation and direct the
investigating officer of the case to conduct fair and
impartial investigation into the matter and submit
the report thereof as expeditiously as possible.
16.
There was no ambiguity or anomaly whatsoever
in this order which granted a limited relief of making
a representation to the respondent-complainant.
17. Very surprisingly, a miscellaneous application
being S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60 of 2025
seeking modification/correction came to be filed
th
within a few days of the order dated 16 January,
2025 wherein, the following averments were made: -
“3. That it is pertinent to note that the present misc.
petition has been filed praying therein to transfer
the investigation t o any independent bodies like CBI
or transferring the investigation to the SOG as the
accused persons are higher police officials and are
also having political influence. Therefore, the same
would suggest that a fair and impartial investigation
cannot be held by the police officials who are
subordinate to the accused persons.
4. That the petitioner has also relief of fair and
impartial investigation in two matters i.e. FIR
202/2024 P.S. Kareda and FIR 234/2024 P.S.
Kareda. However, the Hon’ble Court has only
directed the respondent to Fairly Investigate in only
one FIR.
5. That the matter was argued before the Hon’ble
Court and the Ld. Court was pleased to consider the
averments of the petitioner, however, when the
order was passed the Hon'ble Court has not
10
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
transferred the investigation to any independent
agency.
6. That it is humbly submitted that the purpose of
filing the misc. petition would vitiate if the relief as
prayed is not granted to the petitioner.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, may most respectfully prayed that
this application may kindly be allowed and the order
dated 16.01.2025 may be modified and the prayer
sought by the petitioner in the Misc. Petition may be
granted as relief to the Petitioner.
Any other order favourable to the petitioner may
also be passed.”
18. The most material fact which can be discerned
from the contents of the application is that the
applicant did not make even a semblance of assertion
th
that the order dated 16 January, 2025 suffered from
any typographical error or inadvertent mistake. What
was specifically pleaded in the application was that
the High Court did not accede to the prayers made in
the miscellaneous petition and thus, the Court
should feel persuaded to direct modification in the
th
order dated 16 January, 2025 and accede to the
prayer of the complainant for transfer of investigation
to the CBI. The learned Single Judge, proceeded to
entertain the aforesaid S.B. Criminal Misc.
Application No. 60 of 2025 and sought for the
affidavit of the investigating officer. Accordingly, vide
th
order dated 24 January, 2025, the High Court
11
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
th
proceeded to recall the order dated 16 January,
2025 with the following observations: -
“2.1. Indeed, due to inadvertence, a clerical mistake
has occurred in the order above. The Misc. Petition
was though filed for issuance of directions to
conduct investigation fairly and impartially but
there was a prayer to transfer the investigation from
the State police to any other independent agency
like CBI. The prayer therein was made on serious
aspersions of political influence and with the
specific averment that the accused of this case has
a close connection with the top notch Senior Police
Officer and involvement of a former Cabinet Minister
having influence over the area. The petitioner seems
to be aggrieved by the conduct and manner of the
present investigation and, therefore, he made a
prayer to transfer the case to any other independent
agency.
2.2. Due to heavy board on 16.01.2025,
inadvertently, a clerical mistake occurred and this
Misc Petition No.287/2025 was disposed of with a
direction to the Superintendent of Police Bhilwara
to ensure fair investigation. The outcome does not
address the grievance raised by the petitioner in the
main petition and he has been deprived of getting
justice.
2.3. To err, is human but an (sic.) error committed
due to inadvertence cannot be perpetuated. The
Courts are meant to impart justice and not
supposed to sticks to the processual intricacies and
technicalities of the matter.
3. In this view of the matter, the instant Misc.
Application is allowed and the order dated
16.01.2025 passed in SBCRLMP No.287/2025 is
recalled. The Registry is directed to restore/ re-
register the Misc. Petition No.287/2025 to its
original number and list the matter on 28.01.2025.
4. In the meantime, learned Public Prosecutor is
directed to procure the latest factual report and
respond on the petition.”
12
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
19. After obtaining the affidavit of the investigating
officer, the learned Single Judge, proceeded to pass
th
the contentious impugned order dated 4 February,
2025 whereby the investigation of the FIRs came to
be transferred to the CBI. It is amply clear that in
th
passing the order dated 4 February, 2025 the High
th
Court has virtually reviewed its own order dated 16
January, 2025 on the premise that the said order
seemed to be a result of an inadvertent clerical
mistake and that the same did not address the
grievances raised by the respondent-complainant in
the main petition.
20. Ex-facie, the reasons assigned by the High Court
th
in the order dated 24 January, 2025, for recalling
th
the order dated 16 January, 2025 are erroneous on
the face of the record. There was neither any clerical
mistake nor any inadvertent error in the order dated
th
16 January, 2025 which granted the limited relief of
making a representation to the respondent-
complainant. The complainant did not even plead in
the miscellaneous application seeking
th
clarification/modification that the order dated 16
January, 2025 was passed mistakenly or that the
13
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
same suffered from some clerical error. He claimed
for review of the earlier order, plain and simple.
21. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing for the appellant-State assisted by Mr.
Shiv Mangal Sharma A.A.G, vehemently and fervently
contended that the impugned order is unsustainable
in the eyes of law because the High Court has
proceeded to review its earlier orders while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482
CrPC] which is impermissible. He urged that S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 and S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025 were filed with
identical prayers and the High Court was not
persuaded to accept the prayer made by the
complainant on which, the writ petition was
rd
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23
October, 2024. Just a few days after such dismissal
and without there being any change in
circumstances, the miscellaneous petition under
Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] came to be filed
with identical prayers which was also disposed of by
th
a reasoned order dated 16 January, 2025. The said
reasoned order had been recalled and reviewed by the
th
High Court vide orders dated 24 January, 2025 and
14
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
th
4 February, 2025 respectively which are grossly
illegal and without jurisdiction.
22. Per contra , Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior
counsel representing the respondent-complainant,
supported the impugned orders and urged that the
complainant had raised serious issues regarding the
unfairness of investigation. It was highlighted in the
petitions that the investigation was being influenced
by accused No. 4, Mr. Ramlal Jat, who was a Minister
in the erstwhile Government. Furthermore, the
Director General of Police and the Inspector General
of Police were also showing keen interest to scuttle
the genuine prosecution launched by the
complainant who was compelled to approach the
High Court for seeking justice. The dismissal of the
writ petition would not preclude the complainant
from approaching the High Court afresh because
rd
after such dismissal, vide order dated 23 October,
2024, no steps were being taken by the investigating
officer and a biased approach was being adopted to
favour the accused persons and thus, the
complainant had valid and strong grounds for
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
15
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
by filing the S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of
2025.
23. He urged that the High Court balanced the
th
equities by recalling the order dated 16 January,
2025 and issuing a direction to the CBI for
investigation of the grave crimes alleged in the FIRs.
As per Mr. Dave, the said direction would not cause
prejudice to any party because the CBI would be the
only agency expected to conduct a fair and impartial
investigation, in the peculiar facts of the case. He
thus, urged that the order under challenge does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
24. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through
the material placed on record. We have also carefully
perused the orders passed by the High Court. The
written submissions filed by learned counsel for the
respondent-complainant were also perused.
25. Ex facie , we are of the opinion that once S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 preferred by
the complainant with identical prayers had been
dismissed as withdrawn, without there being any
liberty to approach the High Court again for seeking
self-same relief, the subsequent petition could not
16
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
have been entertained under the garb of exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS
[Section 482 CrPC]. The attempt so made was
nothing but a change in the label of the petition with
the substance being the same.
26. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of
this Court that a criminal Court has no power to
recall or review its own judgment. The only
permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical
errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362
CrPC]. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the
decision of this Court in Simrikhia v. Dolley
9
Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another ,
the relevant portions whereof are quoted below for
ease of reference:
“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706 , this
Court held that Section 561A preserves the inherent
power of the High Court to make such orders as it
deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High
Court must therefore exercise its inherent powers
having regard to the situation prevailing at the
particular point of time when its inherent
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. In that case the
facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the
subsequent application were clearly different from
9
(1990) 2 SCC 437.
17
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
what they were at the time of the earlier application.
The question as to the scope and ambit of the
inherent power of the High Court vis-a-vis an earlier
order made by it was, therefore, not concluded by
this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
cannot be invoked to override bar of review u/s 362.
It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal,
(1981) 1 SCC 50 that the inherent power of the
Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is
specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is
therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be
exercised for doing that which cannot be done on
account of the bar under other provisions of the
Code. The court is not empowered to review its
own decision under the purported exercise of
inherent power. We find that the impugned order
in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier
order on a reconsideration of the same materials.
The High Court has grievously erred in doing so.
Even on merits, we do not find any compelling
reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)
th
27. From a bare perusal of the order dated 16
January, 2025 it is crystal clear that the said order
did not suffer from any clerical error so as to justify
the invocation of jurisdiction by the High Court to
recall or review the same. The observations made by
th
the learned Single Judge in the recall order dated 24
January, 2025 that a clerical mistake occurred while
18
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
th
passing the earlier order dated 16 January, 2025 is
not borne out from the record because the said order
was passed after considering the entirety of facts and
circumstances prevailing on record. There was no
apparent or manifest error what to say of clerical
error in the said order which could justify the
recalling or modification thereof.
28. As a matter of fact, we are of the opinion that
once the writ petition being S.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 2244 of 2024 filed by the complainant
had been dismissed, another petition seeking the
same relief, styling it to be a petition under Section
528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC], could not have been
entertained. The only remedy available to the
complainant in such circumstances would be to
rd
assail the order dated 23 October, 2024 as per law,
if so desired.
th
29. As a result, the impugned orders dated 24
th
January, 2025 and 4 February, 2025 do not stand
to scrutiny and are hereby quashed.
30. However, considering the gravity of allegations,
the complainant is given liberty to take recourse to
the suitable remedy for challenging the orders dated
19
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
rd th
23 October, 2024 and 16 January, 2025 as per
law, if so desired.
31. The appeals are allowed, accordingly.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3308-
3309 OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3310-
3311 OF 2025
33. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeals
@ SLP(Criminal) No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025, nothing
survives for consideration of this Court in these
special leave petitions which are dismissed as such.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 08, 2025.
20
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PARMESHWAR RAMLAL
JOSHI AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3308-
3309 OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3310-
3311 OF 2025
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2797-2798 of
2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
1. Heard.
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.10.08
16:50:11 IST
Reason:
1
2. Leave granted.
3. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before us for
th th
assailing the orders dated 24 January, 2025 and 4
February, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
1
of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur 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
th
16 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
2 3
Ramlal Joshi to the Central Bureau of Investigation .
4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and
essential for disposal of the instant appeals are noted
hereinbelow.
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
2
Hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent-complainant’ or
‘complainant’.
3
For short, “CBI”
2
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
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,
4
1973 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,
5
384, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
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
4
For short, ‘CrPC’.
5
For short “IPC”
3
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
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
4
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
threatened that the Director General of Police and the
Inspector General of Police were on his beck and call
and that he would also take over the other mineral
leases of the complainant being operated in the name
and style of M/s. Black Mount Granite as well. On
th
17 June 2022, the labourers of the complainant
were also threatened by accused Nos. 4 and 5 of
getting them locked up in the police station. The
minerals and equipment including the vehicles lying
in the mining area were stolen. The CCTV cameras
installed at the site along with the DVR were
detached and taken away. The complainant conveyed
the information of these incidents to the Director
th
General of Police, Jaipur e-mail dated 18 June,
via
2022, but no action was forthcoming on his
complaint. He also sent an information to the
Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and the SHO,
P.S., Kareda by Registered AD post but to no avail.
He personally went to P.S. Kareda to report the
matter but was threatened with dire consequences.
9. Pursuant to completion of investigation in FIR
No. 211 of 2023, police filed a negative report in the
matter concluding that the allegations were not made
out and the dispute appeared to be civil in nature.
5
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
The respondent-complainant thereafter filed a
protest petition against the negative report, which is
currently pending adjudication.
10. During the pendency of the aforesaid protest
petition, the respondent-complainant filed 2 more
applications under Section 156(3) CrPC. The
aforesaid applications were allowed and FIR No. 202
6 7
of 2024 and FIR No. 234 of 2024 came to be
registered at P.S. Kareda, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
11. It seems that as per the complainant,
investigation was not being carried out fairly
pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIRs at
P.S. Kareda, whereupon the complainant filed a writ
petition being S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of
th
2024 dated 17 October, 2024 in the High Court
wherein the following prayers were made: -
“PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
misc. petition may kindly be allowed and relief may
be given as under:
1. That the investigation in FIR no. 202/2024 and FIR
No. 234/2024 registered at P.S. Kareda, Bhilwara,
6
Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 425, 427, 217, 218, 34 and 120B of
IPC.
7
Under Sections 303(2), 333, 305(a), and 60(a) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. [Sections 379, 452, 380 and 120B of IPC]
6
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
Rajasthan may kindly be transferred from Local
Police Station to Independent Investigating Agencies
Namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any
other independent agency which is free from
political influence.
2. That the Investigating Authorities may kindly be
directed to carry out the investigation fairly and
impartially.
3. That the Investigation Authorities may be directed
to file chargesheet against the accused persons after
considering all the material evidences produced by
the petitioner.
4. That the accused persons may kindly be directed to
not affect the investigation in the present FIR.”
12. It seems that the learned Single Judge was not
persuaded to pass any positive direction in the
aforesaid writ petition on which the learned counsel
representing the complainant sought withdrawal of
the writ petition which was dismissed as such vide
rd
order dated 23 October, 2024. The aforesaid order
is extracted below for the sake of ready reference: -
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw this criminal writ petition.
Hence, this criminal writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.”
13. The complainant again approached the High
Court by filing a petition under Section 528 of
7
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
8
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
[Section 482 CrPC] being S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.)
No. 287 of 2025. Almost similar prayers as were made
in the criminal writ petition were also made in the
aforesaid petition filed by the respondent-
complainant, which are extracted below for sake of
ready reference: -
“PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
misc. petition may kindly be allowed and relief may
be given as under:
1. That the investigation in FIR No. 202/2024 and
FIR No. 234/2024 registered at P.S. Kareda,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan may kindly be transferred from
Local Police Station to Independent Investigating
Agencies Namely Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) or any other independent agency which is free
from political influence.
2. That the Investigating Authorities may kindly be
directed to carry out the investigation fairly and
impartially.
3. That the Investigation Authorities may be
directed to file charge sheet against the accused
persons after considering all the material evidences
produced by the petitioner.
4. That the accused persons may kindly be directed
to the investigation in the present FIR.”
14. It is undisputed that the complainant did not
even plead in this petition that there had been any
change of circumstances pursuant to the dismissal
8
For short, “BNSS”
8
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
of his earlier criminal writ petition by way of
withdrawal. The aforesaid miscellaneous petition
preferred by the complainant came to be disposed of
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide
th
order dated 16 January, 2025 which reads as
below: -
“3. Seeking fair impartial and expeditious
investigation is a fundamental right of a person, be
he a complainant/victim or the accused. It is
therefore directed that the petitioner shall submit a
representation to the concerned Superintendent of
Police along with all documents on which he places
reliance. The concerned Superintendent of Police is
expected to consider the averments made in the
representation and shall instruct the Investigating
Officer of this case to conduct fair and impartial
investigation and submit the result of the
investigation as expeditiously as possible.
4. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is
disposed of.
5. The stay petition also stands disposed of.”
15. A bare reading of the aforesaid order would
make it crystal clear that the High Court was not
persuaded to accept the prayer of the respondent-
complainant for transfer of investigation to the CBI or
any other agency and simply a liberty was given to
the respondent-complainant to approach the
Superintendent of Police by way of a representation
and the Superintendent of Police, in turn was advised
9
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
to consider the representation and direct the
investigating officer of the case to conduct fair and
impartial investigation into the matter and submit
the report thereof as expeditiously as possible.
16.
There was no ambiguity or anomaly whatsoever
in this order which granted a limited relief of making
a representation to the respondent-complainant.
17. Very surprisingly, a miscellaneous application
being S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60 of 2025
seeking modification/correction came to be filed
th
within a few days of the order dated 16 January,
2025 wherein, the following averments were made: -
“3. That it is pertinent to note that the present misc.
petition has been filed praying therein to transfer
the investigation t o any independent bodies like CBI
or transferring the investigation to the SOG as the
accused persons are higher police officials and are
also having political influence. Therefore, the same
would suggest that a fair and impartial investigation
cannot be held by the police officials who are
subordinate to the accused persons.
4. That the petitioner has also relief of fair and
impartial investigation in two matters i.e. FIR
202/2024 P.S. Kareda and FIR 234/2024 P.S.
Kareda. However, the Hon’ble Court has only
directed the respondent to Fairly Investigate in only
one FIR.
5. That the matter was argued before the Hon’ble
Court and the Ld. Court was pleased to consider the
averments of the petitioner, however, when the
order was passed the Hon'ble Court has not
10
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
transferred the investigation to any independent
agency.
6. That it is humbly submitted that the purpose of
filing the misc. petition would vitiate if the relief as
prayed is not granted to the petitioner.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, may most respectfully prayed that
this application may kindly be allowed and the order
dated 16.01.2025 may be modified and the prayer
sought by the petitioner in the Misc. Petition may be
granted as relief to the Petitioner.
Any other order favourable to the petitioner may
also be passed.”
18. The most material fact which can be discerned
from the contents of the application is that the
applicant did not make even a semblance of assertion
th
that the order dated 16 January, 2025 suffered from
any typographical error or inadvertent mistake. What
was specifically pleaded in the application was that
the High Court did not accede to the prayers made in
the miscellaneous petition and thus, the Court
should feel persuaded to direct modification in the
th
order dated 16 January, 2025 and accede to the
prayer of the complainant for transfer of investigation
to the CBI. The learned Single Judge, proceeded to
entertain the aforesaid S.B. Criminal Misc.
Application No. 60 of 2025 and sought for the
affidavit of the investigating officer. Accordingly, vide
th
order dated 24 January, 2025, the High Court
11
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
th
proceeded to recall the order dated 16 January,
2025 with the following observations: -
“2.1. Indeed, due to inadvertence, a clerical mistake
has occurred in the order above. The Misc. Petition
was though filed for issuance of directions to
conduct investigation fairly and impartially but
there was a prayer to transfer the investigation from
the State police to any other independent agency
like CBI. The prayer therein was made on serious
aspersions of political influence and with the
specific averment that the accused of this case has
a close connection with the top notch Senior Police
Officer and involvement of a former Cabinet Minister
having influence over the area. The petitioner seems
to be aggrieved by the conduct and manner of the
present investigation and, therefore, he made a
prayer to transfer the case to any other independent
agency.
2.2. Due to heavy board on 16.01.2025,
inadvertently, a clerical mistake occurred and this
Misc Petition No.287/2025 was disposed of with a
direction to the Superintendent of Police Bhilwara
to ensure fair investigation. The outcome does not
address the grievance raised by the petitioner in the
main petition and he has been deprived of getting
justice.
2.3. To err, is human but an (sic.) error committed
due to inadvertence cannot be perpetuated. The
Courts are meant to impart justice and not
supposed to sticks to the processual intricacies and
technicalities of the matter.
3. In this view of the matter, the instant Misc.
Application is allowed and the order dated
16.01.2025 passed in SBCRLMP No.287/2025 is
recalled. The Registry is directed to restore/ re-
register the Misc. Petition No.287/2025 to its
original number and list the matter on 28.01.2025.
4. In the meantime, learned Public Prosecutor is
directed to procure the latest factual report and
respond on the petition.”
12
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
19. After obtaining the affidavit of the investigating
officer, the learned Single Judge, proceeded to pass
th
the contentious impugned order dated 4 February,
2025 whereby the investigation of the FIRs came to
be transferred to the CBI. It is amply clear that in
th
passing the order dated 4 February, 2025 the High
th
Court has virtually reviewed its own order dated 16
January, 2025 on the premise that the said order
seemed to be a result of an inadvertent clerical
mistake and that the same did not address the
grievances raised by the respondent-complainant in
the main petition.
20. Ex-facie, the reasons assigned by the High Court
th
in the order dated 24 January, 2025, for recalling
th
the order dated 16 January, 2025 are erroneous on
the face of the record. There was neither any clerical
mistake nor any inadvertent error in the order dated
th
16 January, 2025 which granted the limited relief of
making a representation to the respondent-
complainant. The complainant did not even plead in
the miscellaneous application seeking
th
clarification/modification that the order dated 16
January, 2025 was passed mistakenly or that the
13
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
same suffered from some clerical error. He claimed
for review of the earlier order, plain and simple.
21. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing for the appellant-State assisted by Mr.
Shiv Mangal Sharma A.A.G, vehemently and fervently
contended that the impugned order is unsustainable
in the eyes of law because the High Court has
proceeded to review its earlier orders while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482
CrPC] which is impermissible. He urged that S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 and S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025 were filed with
identical prayers and the High Court was not
persuaded to accept the prayer made by the
complainant on which, the writ petition was
rd
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23
October, 2024. Just a few days after such dismissal
and without there being any change in
circumstances, the miscellaneous petition under
Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] came to be filed
with identical prayers which was also disposed of by
th
a reasoned order dated 16 January, 2025. The said
reasoned order had been recalled and reviewed by the
th
High Court vide orders dated 24 January, 2025 and
14
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
th
4 February, 2025 respectively which are grossly
illegal and without jurisdiction.
22. Per contra , Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior
counsel representing the respondent-complainant,
supported the impugned orders and urged that the
complainant had raised serious issues regarding the
unfairness of investigation. It was highlighted in the
petitions that the investigation was being influenced
by accused No. 4, Mr. Ramlal Jat, who was a Minister
in the erstwhile Government. Furthermore, the
Director General of Police and the Inspector General
of Police were also showing keen interest to scuttle
the genuine prosecution launched by the
complainant who was compelled to approach the
High Court for seeking justice. The dismissal of the
writ petition would not preclude the complainant
from approaching the High Court afresh because
rd
after such dismissal, vide order dated 23 October,
2024, no steps were being taken by the investigating
officer and a biased approach was being adopted to
favour the accused persons and thus, the
complainant had valid and strong grounds for
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
15
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
by filing the S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of
2025.
23. He urged that the High Court balanced the
th
equities by recalling the order dated 16 January,
2025 and issuing a direction to the CBI for
investigation of the grave crimes alleged in the FIRs.
As per Mr. Dave, the said direction would not cause
prejudice to any party because the CBI would be the
only agency expected to conduct a fair and impartial
investigation, in the peculiar facts of the case. He
thus, urged that the order under challenge does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
24. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through
the material placed on record. We have also carefully
perused the orders passed by the High Court. The
written submissions filed by learned counsel for the
respondent-complainant were also perused.
25. Ex facie , we are of the opinion that once S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024 preferred by
the complainant with identical prayers had been
dismissed as withdrawn, without there being any
liberty to approach the High Court again for seeking
self-same relief, the subsequent petition could not
16
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
have been entertained under the garb of exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS
[Section 482 CrPC]. The attempt so made was
nothing but a change in the label of the petition with
the substance being the same.
26. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of
this Court that a criminal Court has no power to
recall or review its own judgment. The only
permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical
errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362
CrPC]. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the
decision of this Court in Simrikhia v. Dolley
9
Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another ,
the relevant portions whereof are quoted below for
ease of reference:
“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706 , this
Court held that Section 561A preserves the inherent
power of the High Court to make such orders as it
deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High
Court must therefore exercise its inherent powers
having regard to the situation prevailing at the
particular point of time when its inherent
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. In that case the
facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the
subsequent application were clearly different from
9
(1990) 2 SCC 437.
17
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
what they were at the time of the earlier application.
The question as to the scope and ambit of the
inherent power of the High Court vis-a-vis an earlier
order made by it was, therefore, not concluded by
this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
cannot be invoked to override bar of review u/s 362.
It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal,
(1981) 1 SCC 50 that the inherent power of the
Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is
specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is
therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be
exercised for doing that which cannot be done on
account of the bar under other provisions of the
Code. The court is not empowered to review its
own decision under the purported exercise of
inherent power. We find that the impugned order
in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier
order on a reconsideration of the same materials.
The High Court has grievously erred in doing so.
Even on merits, we do not find any compelling
reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)
th
27. From a bare perusal of the order dated 16
January, 2025 it is crystal clear that the said order
did not suffer from any clerical error so as to justify
the invocation of jurisdiction by the High Court to
recall or review the same. The observations made by
th
the learned Single Judge in the recall order dated 24
January, 2025 that a clerical mistake occurred while
18
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
th
passing the earlier order dated 16 January, 2025 is
not borne out from the record because the said order
was passed after considering the entirety of facts and
circumstances prevailing on record. There was no
apparent or manifest error what to say of clerical
error in the said order which could justify the
recalling or modification thereof.
28. As a matter of fact, we are of the opinion that
once the writ petition being S.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 2244 of 2024 filed by the complainant
had been dismissed, another petition seeking the
same relief, styling it to be a petition under Section
528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC], could not have been
entertained. The only remedy available to the
complainant in such circumstances would be to
rd
assail the order dated 23 October, 2024 as per law,
if so desired.
th
29. As a result, the impugned orders dated 24
th
January, 2025 and 4 February, 2025 do not stand
to scrutiny and are hereby quashed.
30. However, considering the gravity of allegations,
the complainant is given liberty to take recourse to
the suitable remedy for challenging the orders dated
19
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025
rd th
23 October, 2024 and 16 January, 2025 as per
law, if so desired.
31. The appeals are allowed, accordingly.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3308-
3309 OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 3310-
3311 OF 2025
33. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeals
@ SLP(Criminal) No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025, nothing
survives for consideration of this Court in these
special leave petitions which are dismissed as such.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 08, 2025.
20
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025