“Once Quashed, Forever Quiet”: Supreme Court Re-affirms the Near-Absolute Bar on High-Court Review of Criminal Orders under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Introduction

Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 723) required the Supreme Court of India to answer a deceptively simple question: Can a High Court recall its earlier order quashing an FIR on the ground that the underlying compromise has been breached?

The protagonists were:

Appellants: Raghunath Sharma & others, sellers of immovable property.
Respondents: State of Haryana & Krishan Kumar Gandhi, the complainant–purchaser.

Multiple sale agreements (2013–2015) and cross-litigations culminated in a compromise deed dated 14 July 2015. On 21 March 2016 the High Court invoked Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash FIR No. 432/2014 (Sections 406/420 IPC). When the compromise allegedly broke down, the complainant twice approached the High Court for revival of the FIR. The second attempt succeeded on 8 October 2018; review was refused on 29 April 2019.

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether such recall/revival orders are legally sustainable given the prohibition in Section 362 Cr.P.C. against alteration or review of a signed criminal judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

Allowing the appeals, the Court (Justices Pankaj Mithal & Sanjay Karol, J.) held:

Once a criminal proceeding is finally quashed by the High Court under Section 482, the court becomes functus officio; Section 362 bars any alteration or review except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors.
The two recognised “escape valves” — (a) violation of audi alteram partem, or (b) judgments obtained by fraud/abuse of process — did not apply.
Alleged breach of a compromise is not a recognized ground to recall a quashment order; parties must seek appropriate civil or criminal remedies elsewhere.
Accordingly, the High Court’s orders restoring the FIR and directing re-investigation were quashed.
A copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated among all High Courts to prevent similar misuse of Section 482.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977): classic exposition on inherent powers — used to highlight that Section 482 is an exception, not the rule.
M. Devendrappa (2002): three-Judge Bench explaining the three permitted grounds for Section 482 intervention. Quoted extensively to show its limited ambit.
Section 362 trilogy: Sanjeev Kapoor (2020), Hari Singh Mann (2001), Sankatha Singh (1962) — all confirm that once signed, a criminal judgment cannot be revisited save clerical errors.
Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal (1981): expressly holds that inherent powers cannot override the bar in Section 362.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) & New India Assurance (2021): carve out the two limited exceptions (lack of jurisdiction / violation of natural justice / fraud).
State of Kerala v. Manikantan Nair (2001) & State of M.P. v. Man Singh (2019): reiterated the “no recall” principle — heavily relied upon for final reasoning.

By synthesising these authorities, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the statutory bar in Section 362 is “almost absolute,” and Section 482 cannot be used to achieve indirectly what Section 362 forbids directly.

2. Legal Reasoning

Statutory interpretation: Section 362 begins with “Save as otherwise provided by this Code…”. The Court emphasised that no provision “otherwise” authorises recall of a quashment order.
Functus officio doctrine: Once the High Court disposed of the matter, it lost jurisdiction. Any further order amounts to review, which criminal courts lack unless expressly conferred.
Section 482 cannot override Section 362: Inherent powers are subordinate to express provisions; they operate intra legem (within the law) not contra legem.
Lack of recognised exception: No allegation of fraud or denial of hearing was made against the 2016 quashment order; hence exceptions outlined in Bhullar are inapplicable.
Alternative remedies exist: Breach of compromise may ground civil suit for specific performance or fresh criminal action, but cannot reopen a concluded criminal order.

3. Potential Impact

The decision:

Closes the procedural loophole exploited to resurrect quashed FIRs whenever compromise terms sour.
Provides authoritative guidance to all High Courts, likely reducing a growing genre of “recall” petitions in criminal matters.
Re-balances litigant behaviour: parties will now negotiate compromises more carefully knowing that a future breach cannot revive criminal proceedings once quashed.
May spur resort to civil law remedies and/or fresh complaints (if new offences occur) instead of requesting recall.
Reinforces rule-of-law values — certainty, finality, and respect for statutory limits on judicial power.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Inherent Powers): A “safety valve” enabling High Courts to pass orders necessary to (a) give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., (b) prevent abuse of process, or (c) secure the ends of justice. It is not an open-ended power.
Section 362 Cr.P.C. (Bar on Review): States that no criminal court shall alter or review its judgment once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors. Think of it as a legal “seal” on final orders.
Functus Officio: Latin for “having performed one’s office.” After delivering a final order, the court cannot re-enter the arena except where statute permits.
Audi Alteram Partem: Fundamental natural-justice rule — “hear the other side.” If breached, an order may be recalled because it is void, not merely erroneous.
Quashment of FIR: Judicial cancellation of a First Information Report, effectively terminating that criminal case.

Conclusion

Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana reconfirms that finality is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. By holding that a High Court cannot recall a quashed FIR merely because the underlying compromise has collapsed, the Supreme Court has:

Re-asserted the hierarchy between Section 362’s prohibition and Section 482’s residuary power.
Clarified the narrow gateway (natural-justice violation or fraud) for bypassing the bar on review.
Provided practical guidance to lower courts and litigants, promising greater procedural stability.

In essence, the decision broadcasts a clear message: “Once quashed, forever quiet — unless jurisdictional void or fraud is proven.” This preserves judicial economy, prevents endless litigation cycles, and upholds the statutory architecture of the Criminal Procedure Code.