Guardrails on Inherent Powers under BNSS: No Recall/Review Save for Clerical Errors; Successive Petitions Barred After Withdrawal Without Liberty

Introduction

In State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others, 2025 INSC 1205 (Supreme Court of India, 08 October 2025), a two-Judge Bench (Vikram Nath, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.; judgment authored by Mehta, J.) addressed the permissible scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — the successor to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court set clear limits on two procedural practices:

• High Courts cannot use inherent powers to recall or review their own criminal orders; only clerical mistakes may be corrected under Section 403 BNSS (analogous to Section 362 CrPC).
• After a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to re-agitate, a subsequent petition seeking identical relief cannot be entertained merely by changing the statutory label (e.g., invoking Section 528 BNSS).

The case arose from a commercial dispute in the granite mining sector in Rajasthan that escalated into criminal proceedings, overlain with allegations of political influence. Amid multiple FIRs and claims of biased investigation, the Rajasthan High Court first disposed of a Section 528 BNSS petition by directing the Superintendent of Police (SP) to ensure a fair investigation. It then recalled that order and transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The State appealed. The Supreme Court quashed the recall and the transfer to CBI, reaffirming the discipline that governs criminal courts’ inherent powers.

Factual Background and Procedural History

• 2012 onwards: The respondent-complainant (Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi), director/promoter in companies engaged in granite mining (M/s Black Mount Granite Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Aravali Granimarmo Pvt. Ltd.), alleged extortion, theft, and intimidation connected with share transfers and operations of a mining lease at Raghunathpur, District Bhilwara.
• FIR No. 211/2023: Registered under Sections 406, 420, 384, 379 and 120-B IPC on a 156(3) CrPC referral. Investigation culminated in a negative report (closure) on “civil dispute” grounds; a protest petition is pending.
• Two further FIRs: FIR No. 202/2024 (alleging offences including Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 425, 427, 217, 218, 34 and 120B IPC) and FIR No. 234/2024 (registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; bracketed with corresponding IPC provisions).
• High Court Writ (17 Oct 2024): S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244/2024 sought transfer of investigation to an independent agency (CBI or equivalent) and directions for fair investigation. It was dismissed as withdrawn on 23 Oct 2024; no liberty to refile was sought or granted.
• Section 528 BNSS Petition: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287/2025 sought substantially the same reliefs. On 16 Jan 2025, the High Court disposed of it with a limited direction: the complainant could make a representation to the SP, who should ensure a fair and impartial investigation.
• Recall Application: S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60/2025 sought “modification/correction,” asserting the Court had not transferred investigation as prayed. On 24 Jan 2025, the High Court recalled its 16 Jan 2025 order citing “clerical mistake” and restored the petition.
• Transfer to CBI: On 4 Feb 2025, upon an affidavit from the Investigating Officer, the High Court transferred the investigation of FIRs 202/2024 and 234/2024 to the CBI.
• Appeal: The State of Rajasthan challenged both the recall (24 Jan 2025) and the CBI transfer order (4 Feb 2025) before the Supreme Court.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals, quashing the High Court’s orders dated 24 January 2025 (recall) and 4 February 2025 (transfer of investigation to CBI). The Court held:

• There was no clerical or inadvertent error in the High Court’s order dated 16 January 2025. The subsequent recall amounted to an impermissible review of a criminal order, which is barred by Section 403 BNSS (Section 362 CrPC).
• Having withdrawn the earlier writ petition seeking the same relief without liberty to re-agitate, the complainant could not maintain a fresh petition under Section 528 BNSS for identical reliefs; the “change of label” did not alter the substance.
• The High Court’s transfer of investigation to the CBI rested upon the legally unsustainable recall and therefore could not stand.
• Given the gravity of allegations, the complainant was granted liberty to challenge the earlier High Court orders (23 October 2024 and 16 January 2025) “as per law,” leaving the door open to appropriate statutory or constitutional remedies in the proper forum.

Related special leave petitions (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3308–3309/2025 and 3310–3311/2025) were dismissed as infructuous in view of the main appeals’ disposal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437:
  • Core holding: The High Court cannot employ inherent powers to do what the Code specifically prohibits; Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot be used to review a prior order on the same materials because Section 362 CrPC (now Section 403 BNSS) bars such review.
  • Application here: The High Court’s recall order, justified as a “clerical mistake,” was in substance a reconsideration of the merits of the 16 January 2025 order. Simrikhia squarely forecloses this route.
• Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 50:
  • Core holding: Inherent powers cannot be exercised to circumvent express prohibitions in the Code.
  • Application here: The Court reaffirmed that Section 528 BNSS does not allow a workaround of Section 403 BNSS’s bar on review/recall beyond clerical corrections.
• Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706:
  • Core holding: The High Court’s inherent power exists to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, assessed with reference to circumstances prevailing when the power is invoked.
  • Application here: The Supreme Court observed that unlike in Mohan Singh, there were no materially different circumstances between the two rounds; thus, inherent power could not be invoked to revisit what had already been decided.

Legal Reasoning

1. No clerical error; recall was an impermissible review:
   • The 16 January 2025 order was a reasoned disposal granting a measured relief: representation to the SP and a direction to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The order plainly did not suffer from a typographical or accidental slip.
   • A “clerical mistake” under Section 403 BNSS is limited to minor, mechanical errors (e.g., typographical slips, arithmetic errors). It does not include substantive disagreements with a consciously made judicial determination.
   • By recalling the order on the footing that it did “not address the grievance,” the High Court ventured into review territory — something Section 403 BNSS prohibits, and which cannot be achieved indirectly through Section 528 BNSS.
2. Successive petitions after withdrawal without liberty are not maintainable:
   • The complainant’s earlier writ seeking CBI transfer was dismissed as withdrawn on 23 October 2024 without liberty to refile or to renew the same relief on the same facts.
   • A subsequent petition under Section 528 BNSS on identical prayers, without demonstrating a material change in circumstances, is an abuse of process. As the Court put it, this was “nothing but a change in the label of the petition with the substance being the same.”
3. Consequential invalidity of CBI transfer:
   • Because the recall order was ultra vires (beyond jurisdiction), the revived petition and the ensuing order transferring investigation to the CBI on 4 February 2025 stood on a void foundation and had to be quashed.
   • The Court deliberately refrained from evaluating the intrinsic merits of a CBI transfer, confining its intervention to the procedural and jurisdictional errors in the High Court’s approach.
4. Balanced relief:
   • Recognizing the “gravity of allegations,” the Court preserved the complainant’s right to pursue appropriate remedies against the orders of 23 October 2024 (writ dismissed as withdrawn) and 16 January 2025 (Section 528 BNSS disposal), “as per law.”
   • This ensures that while procedural integrity is maintained, substantive grievances are not foreclosed if advanced through the correct procedural channel.

Impact and Significance

• Continuity under BNSS: The decision confirms seamless doctrinal continuity from CrPC to BNSS:
  • Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) mirrors Section 482 CrPC.
  • Section 403 BNSS (bar to review/recall except clerical errors) mirrors Section 362 CrPC.
  • Precedents like Simrikhia and Sooraj Devi continue to govern.
• Procedural discipline for High Courts:
  • High Courts must resist the temptation to recast merits-based disagreements as “clerical mistakes.”
  • “Modification”/“clarification” orders cannot be used as vehicles for de facto review in criminal jurisdiction.
• Finality and abuse-of-process guardrails:
  • Litigants cannot pursue a “second bite” by re-filing under a different statutory provision after withdrawing a petition without liberty.
  • This curbs forum shopping and promotes finality, predictability, and judicial economy.
• CBI transfer jurisprudence:
  • Though the Supreme Court did not opine on whether the facts warranted a transfer, the ruling reinforces that such extraordinary relief must be pursued through the right procedural route and cannot be fastened to an impermissible recall.
  • In future, High Courts may be expected to expressly record exceptional circumstances and ensure procedural regularity before transferring investigation to the CBI.
• Guidance for practitioners:
  • When withdrawing a writ petition, seek explicit liberty if there is any possibility of re-agitating similar reliefs upon change of circumstances.
  • If aggrieved by an order under Section 528 BNSS, do not seek “modification” to revisit the merits; instead, use appropriate appellate/constitutional remedies.
  • Demonstrate a genuine, material change in circumstances if a fresh invocation of inherent powers is contemplated after an earlier adverse order.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Inherent powers (Section 528 BNSS): A narrow residuary authority allowing High Courts to pass orders to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. It is not a general appellate or review power.
• Bar on review/recall (Section 403 BNSS): Criminal courts cannot review or recall their own final orders, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors (e.g., typographical slips, numerical mistakes).
• Clerical error vs. substantive error:
  • Clerical error: A mechanical mistake in writing or computation; can be corrected without re-examining the merits.
  • Substantive error: A perceived flaw in reasoning or outcome; cannot be corrected through “modification” in criminal jurisdiction; requires appeal or other appropriate remedy.
• Withdrawal without liberty: When a petition is withdrawn and the court does not grant permission to refile or renew the same relief, the petitioner cannot re-agitate the same relief on the same facts in a fresh proceeding, absent a material change in circumstances.
• Recall vs. Review:
  • Recall (proper use): To correct clerical errors or set aside orders obtained by fraud or without jurisdiction (nullities).
  • Review: Reconsideration of merits. In criminal jurisdiction, review is barred by Section 403 BNSS (Section 362 CrPC).
• Negative report and protest petition: If the police file a closure (negative) report after investigation, the complainant may file a protest petition asking the Magistrate to take cognizance or direct further investigation.
• Transfer of investigation to CBI: An extraordinary measure generally reserved for rare and exceptional cases necessitating an independent probe; demands strict procedural compliance and recorded reasons.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi is a timely reaffirmation—now expressly mapped onto the BNSS—of two bedrock propositions in criminal procedure. First, inherent powers exist to prevent abuse and secure justice, not to override statutory prohibitions: Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to review or recall criminal orders beyond correcting genuine clerical errors under Section 403 BNSS. Second, procedural finality matters: once a petition is withdrawn without liberty, the same relief cannot be re-sought through a differently labeled proceeding on the same facts, absent a demonstrable change in circumstances.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and preserving the complainant’s right to pursue appropriate remedies, the Court restored procedural discipline by quashing the High Court’s recall and consequential transfer to the CBI. For litigants and courts operating under the BNSS, the message is clear: maintain the integrity of procedural pathways, respect the limits of inherent jurisdiction, and seek extraordinary relief like CBI transfer through the correct forum and in the rare cases that truly warrant it.