A High Court Cannot Review Its Final Criminal Revisional Order Under Inherent Jurisdiction.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking recall of the High Court’s order dated 19 December 2025 dismissing their criminal revisions.

Those revisions challenged orders rejecting applications to compound offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), on the petitioners’ offer to pay 20% of the cheque amounts without the complainants’ consent.

The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 did not decide whether such offences could be compounded without the complainant’s consent.

The respondents opposed recall, submitting that the applications sought an impermissible review of the earlier order.

Whether the High Court could use its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS to recall or review its final order dismissing the criminal revisions.

Whether the petitioners established a basis to recall the earlier order concerning the rejection of their applications to compound the Section 138 NI Act offences without the complainants’ consent.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 403 of the BNSS, bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing a signed judgment or final order disposing of a case, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, now Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot be used to circumvent that bar or to review a final order.

The Court also relied on the Constitution Bench decision in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, which held that Section 258 CrPC does not apply to Section 138 complaints and stated that proceedings under Section 138 could not be closed on that basis without the complainant’s consent.

The Court treated the request to recall the 19 December 2025 order as, in substance, a request to review its final decision on the revisions.

It held that Section 528 BNSS could not supply a review power barred by Section 403 BNSS, and that no clerical or arithmetical error was asserted.

As to the underlying compounding issue, the earlier order had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision and the complainants’ lack of consent in finding no basis to interfere with the appellate orders.

The Court therefore found no ground to recall its final order.

It dismissed all three petitions as devoid of merit.