Section 362 CrPC prohibits reviewing final orders through the exercise of inherent powers.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking modification of a final order dated November 13, 2025, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 45020/2024

In the earlier proceedings, the Court had directed BSNL to preserve certain Call Detail Records (CDR) and tower locations

On November 13, 2025, the State submitted that the records were destroyed, leading the Court to dismiss the matter as infructuous

The petitioner now alleges that this submission was factually incorrect as the mobile numbers in question did not belong to BSNL, and records for two specific numbers were never requisitioned

The State contested the maintainability of the petition, citing the statutory bar against reviewing final orders

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) to modify or review a final order in light of the prohibition contained in Section 362 of the CrPC.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which mandates that no Court, after signing its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), affirming that inherent powers cannot be exercised to override or defeat an express statutory prohibition such as Section 362

The Court reasoned that the relief sought by the petitioner, though labeled as a "modification," was substantively an attempt to seek a review or recall of a final order passed on merits

The Court observed that once a final order is signed, the Court becomes functus officio regarding that matter

The bench emphasized that inherent powers preserved under Section 528 of the BNSS are not a tool to circumvent the explicit bar under Section 362 of the CrPC

Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide material evidence to substantiate the claim that the mobile numbers did not belong to BSNL

Consequently, the Court found no legal grounds to entertain the request for modification of a concluded proceeding

The Court clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the finality of the previous order, the appropriate remedy lies in other legal avenues rather than a modification petition

The petition was dismissed as not maintainable