S. 362 CrPC Does Not Curtail High Court's Inherent Power To Recall Judgment Resulting In Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which generally bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing a judgment after it has been signed, does not obliterate the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to recall an order or judgment when allowing it to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court made the observation while allowing the appeal of Mahavir alias Avnish, who was found to have been a juvenile on the date of the offence but had been convicted and sentenced by a regular criminal court. The Court criticised the High Court's approach in declining its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to recall its judgment convicting him, despite finding that he was a juvenile.
The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandshekhar overturned a 2018 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which had declined to reopen his conviction under Section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the ground that the judgment had attained finality and could not be revisited under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
The Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 362 of the CrPC (Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), against altering or reviewing a judgment does not apply where the order under consideration was passed without jurisdiction, and that the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to recall such an order.
“The provisions under section 362 cannot be considered in a rigid or overtechnical manner to defeat the ends of justice. The bar of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not operate in cases where the order or judgment under consideration was without jurisdiction and inherent power of the High Court can be exercised to recall such orders,” the bench held.
Background
The ruling arose from the case of Mahavir alias Avnish, who was convicted under Section 201 Part II of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence in connection with the deaths of a woman and her infant daughter.
While the charges of murder and dowry death under Sections 302 and 304B IPC were not proved, Mahavir and the other accused were convicted under Section 201 Part II IPC. His conviction was affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2017.
Mahavir subsequently approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking recall of the appellate judgment on the ground that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed.
The High Court directed an inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board subsequently found, on the basis of school records, a birth certificate and other evidence, that Mahavir's date of birth was July 1, 1987. Since the offence occurred on September 13, 2004, he was 17 years, 2 months and 12 days old on the date of the incident.
Despite the finding of juvenility, the High Court declined to reopen the case, holding that the conviction had attained finality.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court had committed “an error of record” in treating the appellant's conviction as having attained finality up to the Supreme Court. It perused the 2018 order that showed that only the SLPs of the appellant's parents were heard and disposed of on merits with reduction of their sentence, while the appellant's SLP was simply dismissed as withdrawn, without any adjudication on merits. The Court also observed that it did not “appeal to common sense” that the appellant would have withdrawn his petition without reason while his parents secured relief on sentence. This made his claim credible, that he withdrew the SLP only to pursue the plea of juvenility before the High Court.
Section 362 CrPC doesn't curtail S.482 CrPC powers
With regards to Section 482 CrPC and Section 362 CrPC, the bench explained that while Section 362 bars a court from altering or reviewing its judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, it does not extinguish the High Court's inherent power to recall an order that was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or under a mistake that caused prejudice to a party. The Court referred to Ganesh Patel v Umakant Rajoria, State of Punjab v Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors, and Madhu Limaye v State of Maharashtra, to hold that such a recall is a procedural review, distinct from a substantive review which is barred by Section 362 CrPC.
Referring to AR Antulay v RS Nayak, the bench stated that, “no man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. Ex debito justitiae, we must do justice to him. If a man has been wronged so long as it lies within the human machinery of administration of justice that wrong must be remedied.”
“The High Court has undoubted jurisdiction to recall its own order or judgment which results in miscarriage of justice. Subject to a decision in any case on the merits by this Court, a fundamental issue which will change the course of the decision remains open in the case so long as the High Court is seized with the matter. The High Court shall have inherent jurisdiction to correct its order or judgment and do complete justice. The limitation on inherent power of the High Court is a kind of self-restraint originating from the philosophy of judicial propriety. This shall, however, not be an issue falling in the realm of inherent limitations under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the High Court decides to recall its previous order or judgment because a mistake was committed by the Court. If the juvenile was denied a statutory benefit and thereby a grave prejudice was caused to him, the High Court has all powers to remedy the situation and secure the ends of justice,” the bench held.
The Court also noted that the appellant had already been acquitted of the charges of murder and dowry death. Since a conviction under Section 201 Part II of IPC requires a finding that an offence was committed and that the accused caused evidence of that offence to disappear with intent to screen the offender, the Court held that in the absence of a finding of the underlying offence, the appellant's conviction under Section 201 Part II of IPC “must be held illegal.”
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court has set aside the High Court's order as well as the conviction order. The appellant was, thus, discharged from his bail bonds.
Case: Mahavir @ Anvish v State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892
Appearance:
For Appellant: Mr Prashant Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent: Mr Surjeet Singh, Adv. and Mr Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv.