Criminal Court Cannot Review Its Final Order on Merits Due to Absolute Bar under Section 362 CrPC

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) seeking the review or recall of a final order dated 23.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8169/2026.

In the original order, the High Court had directed the interim release of a seized vehicle despite the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act.

The State contended that this order overlooked the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of M.P. v. Uday Singh (2020), which bars such interim releases.

The respondents challenged the maintainability of the review petition based on statutory prohibitions.

1. Whether a High Court has the jurisdiction to review or recall its own final order in a criminal case in light of the statutory bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to override an express statutory prohibition against reviewing a signed judgment.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which mandates that no Court, after signing its judgment or final order, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

Doctrine of functus officio, asserting that once a final order is signed, the court loses jurisdiction over the matter.

Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to bypass express statutory bars.

State of M.P. v. Uday Singh (2020) concerning the bar on interim release of vehicles under forest laws.

The court reasoned that the prohibition under Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute and leaves no room for a substantive review of a final order on its merits.

The State’s argument—that the court failed to apply the Uday Singh precedent—was categorized as a request for a rehearing on merits rather than a correction of a clerical error.

The court clarified that even if a prior order contains an error of law, the High Court cannot rectify it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as doing so would violate the statutory embargo; the proper remedy is an appeal to a superior forum.

Furthermore, the court defended its original order, noting it was passed under "peculiar circumstances" where the applicability of the Forest Act was itself in dispute between the Revenue and Forest departments.

A court becomes functus officio upon signing a final order and cannot reopen the case to reconsider legal precedents.

The petition was dismissed without costs.