Review petition cannot be entertained if filed by a different counsel than the one who argued the original writ.

An FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 12.10.2025 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alleging that he continued to operate institutions in the name of his deceased mother, Smt. Radhika Singh, without declaring her death.

The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25002 of 2025 to quash the FIR, which was dismissed on 03.12.2025 on the grounds that a cognizable offence was prima facie disclosed.

The petitioner subsequently filed this review application, represented by new counsel, arguing that material facts regarding pending civil litigations and a previous High Court order dated 15.11.2025 (directing the Assistant Registrar to examine the dispute) were not brought to the Court’s notice during the writ proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that a review petition is generally not maintainable if filed by a different counsel than the one who argued the original case, as established in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. (AIR 1997 SC 1005), Vinita Bhatnagar vs. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine All 6411), and Civil Misc. Review Application No. 432 of 2023.

Regarding the quashing of FIRs, the Court relied on State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 1918), which mandate non-interference if a cognizable offence is prima facie revealed.

The Court first noted the procedural impropriety of the review being filed by new counsel, citing established precedents.

the Court observed that the order dated 15.11.2025 was available to the petitioner during the original hearing on 03.12.2025 but was not placed before the Court.

the Court reasoned that the existence of civil disputes or suits for permanent injunction does not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability where the primary allegation—fabrication of a deceased person's signatures—requires police investigation. The Court emphasized that once a cognizable offence is disclosed, the criminal process must proceed regardless of parallel civil proceedings.

Finally, it was noted that the petitioner had already acted upon the original judgment by seeking anticipatory bail, further weakening the case for review.

The Court condoned the delay in filing but dismissed the Review Application because the change of counsel was improper, the "new" facts were actually available during the original hearing, and the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence requiring investigation. The original order dated 03.12.2025 stands.