Legal Review and Analysis of State of Rajasthan vs Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others 2025 INSC 1205
1. Heading of the Judgment
State of Rajasthan vs. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1205
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025)
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - This corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - This corresponds to Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which states that no court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellant: State of Rajasthan
Respondents: Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi (Complainant) and Others
Subject Matter: Challenge to the Rajasthan High Court's orders dated January 24, 2025, and February 04, 2025, whereby the High Court recalled its own earlier order and subsequently transferred the investigation of two FIRs from the state police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and quashed the impugned orders of the High Court.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The Central Issue: The Impermissibility of Review under the Guise of Inherent Powers
The core legal principle addressed by the Supreme Court in this judgment is the limitation on a court's power to review its own judgment in criminal proceedings. The case revolved around whether the Rajasthan High Court could validly recall and effectively review its own reasoned order under the pretext of correcting a "clerical mistake" using its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC).
Factual Matrix and Procedural Impropriety
The factual background reveals a series of petitions filed by the respondent-complainant:
First Petition (Withdrawn): The complainant first filed a writ petition (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2024) seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn on October 23, 2024, with no liberty granted to file a fresh petition on the same cause.
Second Petition (Disposed of with Limited Relief): Shortly after, the complainant filed a second petition with identical prayers, but this time under Section 528 BNSS (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 287 of 2025). The High Court, vide its order dated January 16, 2025, did not grant the prayer for CBI transfer. Instead, it directed the complainant to make a representation to the Superintendent of Police, who was to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. This was a considered order.
Recall and Review (Impugned Orders): Unsatisfied, the complainant filed an application for "modification/correction." The High Court, vide order dated January 24, 2025, recalled its January 16 order, claiming a "clerical mistake" and "inadvertence" had occurred due to a "heavy board." Subsequently, on February 04, 2025, it allowed the main petition and transferred the investigation to the CBI.
The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court found the High Court's actions legally unsustainable for the following key reasons:
No Clerical Error Existed: The Court emphasized that the order dated January 16, 2025, was a reasoned order that consciously granted only limited relief. There was no typographical, clerical, or arithmetical error in it. The complainant's application for modification also did not plead any such error; it was a plain request for a review.
Inherent Power Cannot Override a Statutory Bar: The judgment relies heavily on the precedent set in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 50, which held that "the inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code." Section 403 BNSS (Section 362 CrPC) explicitly prohibits a criminal court from altering or reviewing its judgment. Therefore, the High Court cannot use its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to achieve what is statutorily forbidden.
Abuse of Process through Successive Petitions: The Supreme Court noted that filing a second petition under Section 528 BNSS with the same prayers, after the first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, was nothing but an "abuse of the process of the court." It was a mere "change in the label of the petition with the substance being the same." The proper remedy for the complainant was to challenge the first order of dismissal (dated October 23, 2024) in appeal, not to file a fresh petition.
Recall Order Was a De Facto Review: The Supreme Court saw through the High Court's reasoning. It held that the recall order dated January 24, 2025, was "in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials," which is expressly prohibited.
5. Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court:
Allowed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan.
Quashed and set aside the impugned orders of the Rajasthan High Court dated January 24, 2025, and February 04, 2025.
Reiterated that the High Court cannot review its own judgment in criminal cases under the guise of exercising inherent jurisdiction.
Granted Liberty to the complainant to challenge the earlier orders (dated October 23, 2024, and January 16, 2025) before an appropriate forum, in accordance with the law.
6. Multiple Choice Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order transferring the investigation to the CBI primarily on which legal ground?
(a) The allegations in the FIR were not serious enough for a CBI investigation.
(b) The High Court does not have the power to transfer investigations to the CBI under any circumstance.
(c) The High Court cannot use its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to review its own judgment, which is barred by Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS).
(d) The complainant did not approach the Superintendent of Police as directed by the High Court's initial order.
(c) The High Court cannot use its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to review its own judgment, which is barred by Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS).
Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, what was the fundamental flaw in the High Court's order dated January 24, 2025, which recalled its earlier order?
(a) The High Court failed to consider the affidavit of the investigating officer before passing the recall order.
(b) The High Court incorrectly characterized its earlier reasoned order as containing a "clerical mistake" or "inadvertent error."
(c) The recall application was filed by the State of Rajasthan, which lacked the locus standi.
(d) The High Court did not provide the complainant an opportunity to be heard.
(b) The High Court incorrectly characterized its earlier reasoned order as containing a "clerical mistake" or "inadvertent error.
Blog Posts
