FIR Wrongly Quashed For All On Partial Compromise: Rajasthan High Court Recalls Order, Differentiates It From Review

While exercising its power to recall, Rajasthan High Court set aside its order that inadvertently quashed an entire FIR based on a compromise that was reached between the complainant and only two accused, and granted liberty to the investigating agency to proceed against remaining accused in accordance with law.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that rectification of such inadvertent error by recalling relevant portion of the order did not amount to exercising review. Rather, it was a legitimate exercise of court's inherent authority to correct accidental or clerical mistakes to prevent miscarriage of justice.

The Court was hearing an application filed by the complainant in whose matter the investigation had revealed involvement of 15 persons. In due course, compromise was reached between the complainant and two of the accused. One of these accused approached the Court with a quashing petition based on the compromise.

However, instead of limiting the quashing to the extent of the petitioner, the entire FIR was quashed even in respect of other accused persons who did not even approach the Court for such quashing. Hence, the application was filed by the complainant.

After hearing the contentions and taking into account the facts, the Court opined that quashing of the entire FIR was an inadvertent mistake attributed to a slip of the pen or mind. It was held that since the compromise was confined to the petitioner, the intention of the Court was only to quash the proceedings to the extent of the petitioner, and not in its entirety.

The Court also clarified the distinction between review jurisdiction and recall jurisdiction. It was stated that a review contemplated a substantive reconsideration of a matter already adjudicated upon and could be exercised on narrowly defined grounds. On the contrary, in relation to the power to recall, the Court held that,

“…it is invoked in circumstances where the order of the Court has been affected by an inadvertent procedural irregularity, accidental omission, clerical lapse, or a manifest slip of pen or mind, which has the effect of causing the recorded order to deviate from the true intent and contemplation of the Court…Court merely undertakes the ministerial act of restoring its order to the form and substance which it had originally intended.”

In this light, while allowing the application and setting aside quashing against other accused persons, the Court opined that rectifying such an inadvertent error by recalling the relevant portion of the order was not review but legitimate exercise of court's inherent authority to correct accidental or clerical mistakes to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the application was disposed of.

Title: Supriya v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

Click Here To Read/Download Order