Summary and Analysis of Vikram Bakshi and Others vs R P Khosla and Another

1. Heading of the Judgment
Vikram Bakshi and Others vs. R.P. Khosla and Another (2025 INSC 1020)
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Recall Order in Perjury Proceedings, Reaffirms Finality of Criminal Judgments Under CrPC

Citation:
Vikram Bakshi and Others v. R.P. Khosla and Another, (2025) INSC 1020, Criminal Appeal No. [@ SLP (Crl) No. 3425 of 2022] (Supreme Court of India).

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 340: Procedure for filing a complaint for perjury or fabrication of evidence.
  Section 362: Prohibition on altering or reviewing judgments except for clerical or arithmetical errors.
  Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court (but subject to Section 362).

• Companies Act, 1956:
  Sections 397–398: Provisions for relief against oppression and mismanagement.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
  Order XLVII: Review of judgments (not applicable to criminal proceedings).

• Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
  Section 403: Corresponding provision to CrPC Section 362.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Vikram Bakshi, Vinod Surha, Wadia Prakash
  Respondents: R.P. Khosla (Contesting), Anand Mohan Mishra (Proforma)

• Courts Involved:
  Company Law Board (CLB) / National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
  High Court of Delhi
  Supreme Court of India

• Key Dates:
  High Court’s initial order: 13 August 2020
  High Court’s recall order: 5 May 2021
  Supreme Court judgment: 20 August 2025

• Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.: 3425 of 2022

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in Vikram Bakshi and Others vs. R.P. Khosla and Another, allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated 5 May 2021, which had recalled its earlier judgment dated 13 August 2020. The recall was sought in a petition under Section 340 CrPC alleging perjury by the appellants.

Background:
The dispute arose between two groups—Khosla Group and Bakshi Group—over a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. The Khosla Group accused the Bakshi Group of forging minutes of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) dated 30 September 2006 to claim directorship in Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL). Multiple legal proceedings ensued, including a company petition under Sections 397–398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and applications under Section 340 CrPC for perjury.

Key Legal Issue:
Whether a criminal court (including the High Court) can review or recall its own judgment in a proceeding under Section 340 CrPC, beyond the limited exceptions under Section 362 CrPC.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning:

• Finality of Criminal Judgments: The Court reaffirmed that Section 362 CrPC strictly prohibits any review or alteration of a criminal court’s judgment after it is signed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.

• No Review Under CrPC: The High Court has no inherent power to review its own judgment in criminal matters. Any attempt to do so violates Section 362.

• Procedural vs. Substantive Review: The Court distinguished between "procedural review" (e.g., correcting a mistake due to fraud or lack of jurisdiction) and "substantive review" (reconsidering merits). Only the former is permissible in exceptional cases.

• Inapplicability of CPC: Review petitions under Order XLVII of the CPC are not maintainable in criminal proceedings. The CrPC is a complete code for criminal matters.

• Factual Context: The High Court’s recall was based on the withdrawal of a company petition (CP 114 of 2007) by the Khosla Group. However, this fact was known to them at the time of the original hearing but was not disclosed. The Supreme Court found this to be a deliberate attempt to misuse the process of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s recall order was illegal and without jurisdiction. It reinstated the High Court’s judgment dated 13 August 2020, which had rightly refused to interfere in the perjury allegations, noting that the matter was pending before the NCLT as per the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.