Criminal Courts Cannot Recall Or Review Their Own Judgments Except For Clerical Or Arithmetical Errors: Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court recently ruled that criminal courts cannot review or recall their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, while setting aside a Delhi High Court order that had reopened perjury proceedings in a corporate dispute.A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the HC order that had recalled its earlier decision dismissing a petition for initiating perjury proceedings in a long-running dispute.“the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this, despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar”, the Court observed.Background FactsThe Bakshi and Khosla groups entered into a December 2005 agreement to develop a resort at Kasauli through Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL). A March 2006 agreement gave Vikram Bakshi a 51% stake and placed Vinod Surha and Wadia Prakash on the board.Disputes arose when Sonia Khosla claimed her shareholding was reduced from 49% to 36% and filed a company petition before the Company Law Board (CLB) in 2007 alleging oppression and mismanagement. She also alleged that AGM minutes filed by the Bakshi Group were forged and sought prosecution for perjury under Section 340 CrPC, first before CLB and later the High Court.In 2014, the Supreme Court directed that both the company petition and the perjury application be decided by the CLB (now NCLT) and restrained the High Court from proceeding further.In 2019, R.P. Khosla filed another application in the High Court alleging that the Bakshi Group had filed a false counter-affidavit in related contempt proceedings. The High Court dismissed it in August 2020, citing the 2014 Supreme Court order.The Khosla Group then sought recall, arguing that the company petition had been withdrawn in February 2020 but the fact was not placed before the court earlier. The High Court accepted this and recalled its judgment on May 5, 2021, prompting the present appeal.The Khosla Group defended the High Court's order, arguing that it had exercised procedural review to correct a factual mistake and had not conducted a substantive review of the case.Supreme Court's VerdictThe Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and governed exclusively by the CrPC. It found that a review application under the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable in such matters.“Considering that the proceedings initiated under section 340 of CrPC are of criminal nature and governed by the provisions of CrPC which is a self-contained Code, and includes entire procedure within itself to deal with the proceedings initiated under its provisions, there is no scope for application of provisions of any other procedural law until specifically provided under such law”, the Court held.The Court reiterated that criminal courts become functus officio once a judgment is signed and can only correct clerical or arithmetical errors or act in rare situations such as fraud, lack of jurisdiction or denial of hearing. From various precedents, the Court culled out the following exceptional circumstances wherein a criminal court is empowered to alter or review its own judgment or a final order under Section 362 CrPC:"a. Such power is expressly conferred upon court by CrPC or any other law for the time being in force or;b. The court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so or;c. A fraud or collusion is being played on court to obtain such judgment or order or;d. A mistake on the part of court caused prejudice to a party or;e. Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party or death leading to estate being non-represented, not brought to notice of court while passing such judgment or order."None of these exceptions, the Court said, applied to the present case.The Court also noted that the Khosla Group had withdrawn the company petition months before the High Court's August 2020 judgment but stated that it was still pending. Since this fact was available at the time of the original hearing, it could not later be used to justify recall.“Such an act to undermine the finality of the judicial proceedings cannot be permitted especially in such situations of deliberate omissions or misrepresentation on the part of the parties before the court and thereafter attempting to defend themselves and obtaining the verboten order dated 05.05.2021, substantially reviewing and recalling the Judgment dated 13.08.2020, under the garb of “procedural review” which is...

Criminal Courts Cannot Recall Or Review Their Own Judgments Except For Clerical Or Arithmetical Errors: Supreme Court Reiterates

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Criminal Courts Cannot Recall Or Review Their Own Judgments Except For Clerical Or Arithmetical Errors: Supreme Court Reiterates

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers