Atul Shukla v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

An FIR (No. 575/2016) was lodged at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh for alleged offences under Sections 364 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was filed on 8 September 2016.

The second respondent sought quashing of the FIR by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While that petition was pending, charges were framed on 24 April 2017. On 20 July 2018, the High Court dismissed the Section 482 petition (SCC OnLine MP 1425), observing that the petitioner could challenge the charges through the appropriate legal avenue.

Subsequently, the second respondent filed another petition under Section 482 seeking to “review, recall and modify” the earlier High Court order. On 20 August 2018, the High Court allowed this second petition and recalled its earlier order (SCC OnLine MP 1424). The present appeal challenges that recall order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court could entertain a second petition under Section 482 CrPC to review or modify its own final order in view of the express bar contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Section 362 CrPC expressly prohibits any court from altering or reviewing its judgment after it is signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
• Therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second Section 482 petition that sought review or modification of the final order dated 20 July 2018.

State of Madhya Pradesh

• Supported the appellant’s contention that Section 362 creates a complete bar to the course adopted by the High Court.

Second Respondent's Arguments

• Contended that, in the earlier order, the High Court had already noted that no offence under Section 364 IPC appeared to be made out, implying that recall or modification was justified.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that when the High Court dismissed the first Section 482 petition, it expressly permitted the second respondent to pursue appropriate remedies after the framing of charges. That dismissal constituted a final order.

Section 362 CrPC categorically forbids a court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The Court held that this statutory bar is absolute and left no scope for the High Court to revisit its earlier decision through a subsequent Section 482 petition styled as a request for “review, recall and modification.”

Consequently, the impugned order dated 20 August 2018—whereby the High Court recalled its earlier dismissal—was held to be without jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; High Court’s order dated 20 August 2018 set aside.

The second respondent’s attempt to seek review or modification of the earlier dismissal under Section 482 CrPC stands nullified. The decision reinforces the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing or altering a signed final order, thereby emphasizing that litigants must pursue any permissible statutory remedies rather than re-invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.