Subsequent matrimonial discord cannot retrospectively invalidate a final quashing order or establish fraud on the court.

The Applicant (Respondent No. 2/Ms. P) originally filed FIR No. 152/2024 against the Respondent (Ashwani Pal) alleging rape on the false promise of marriage, forced abortion, and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(2)(n), 313, and 506 of the IPC

Following the FIR, the parties married on May 31, 2024

Consequently, on December 3, 2024, the High Court quashed the FIR based on the Applicant’s voluntary statement that the relationship was consensual and they were happily married

Six months later, the Applicant moved this application to recall the quashing order, alleging it was obtained by fraud and coercion, and claiming she had since been abandoned and assaulted by the Respondent

1. Whether a High Court can recall or review its own final order of quashing criminal proceedings in light of the statutory bar under Section 362 of the CrPC (now Section 403 of the BNSS)

2. Whether subsequent matrimonial discord or a breach of settlement terms constitutes "fraud" sufficient to invalidate a prior judicial order of quashing

Section 362 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 403 of the BNSS), which prohibits a court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors

Once a case is disposed of, the court becomes functus officio and cannot invoke inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to bypass express statutory bars (Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana)

Distinguishing between a false promise made in bad faith from inception and a subsequent breach of a promise to marry (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra)

The Court reasoned that the quashing order was not based on a mere future promise but on the fact that marriage had already been solemnized and the Applicant had personally confirmed the consensual nature of the prior relationship in open court

Under Section 362 CrPC, the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to undertake a substantive review of a final order

The Court observed that "fraud" was not established because the marriage had actually occurred prior to the quashing; thus, the Respondent's intent at the time of the order could not be termed fraudulent based solely on subsequent matrimonial disputes

The Court emphasized that if every breakdown of a settlement-based marriage allowed for the revival of criminal cases, judicial finality would be rendered "illusory"

Any new acts of cruelty or violence constitute fresh causes of action to be pursued through separate legal remedies

The Court clarified that the Applicant remains free to pursue independent legal remedies for any fresh offenses committed by the Respondent post-quashing