New Delhi: A high court has no power to review or recall its final judgement in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has held, setting aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had transferred to the CBI two illegal mining and intimidation cases in Bhilwara against Congress leader and former minister Ramlal Jat, after initially declining to do so.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the Rajasthan government against transferring the case to the CBI, holding that the high court’s recall of its earlier order amounted to an impermissible review of a final judgment.
The ruling effectively restores the probe to Rajasthan Police from the CBI. The state police will now continue to investigate the cases against former minister Ramlal Jat and others.
The apex court said such a recall by the HC could not be justified on the ground that it was done to correct a “clerical or inadvertent error”, the sole ground to review final judgement in a criminal case.
Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment, said, “Ex facie (on the face of it), the reasons assigned by the High Court in the order for recalling the order of January 16, 2025, are erroneous on the face of the record. There was neither any clerical mistake nor any inadvertent error.”
In the high court, complainant Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite businessman, had invoked the inherent powers of the HC under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to seek a transfer of the investigation from the local police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
He argued that the local police were under the influence of then revenue minister Ramlal Jat, and that a fair and impartial investigation would not be possible by the state agency.
Also Read: No ‘maharaja, princess’ in court, orders Rajasthan HC. What Constitution says about royal titles
HC initially denied CBI probe
On 16 January, 2025, the high court had denied Parmeshwar Joshi’s request for a CBI probe, observing sufficient remedies existed under law to ensure a fair investigation. It directed him to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned, instructing the officer to ensure a “fair and impartial” investigation.
Dissatisfied with this order, Joshi moved the high court again through a miscellaneous application (moved for the specific purpose of getting the probe transferred), leading to the recall of the order and eventual transfer of the case to the CBI, a decision now quashed by the Supreme Court.
Case against ex-minister Ramlal Jat
The case stems from two FIRs registered at the Kareda Police Station in Bhilwara in 2024, following complaints by granite businessman Parmeshwar Joshi against Congress leader Ramlal Jat, and others.
Senior Congress leader Jat, who served as Rajasthan’s revenue minister between 2021 to 2023 under the Ashok Gehlot government, was accused of threatening and attempting to take control of Joshi’s mining operations after a business deal between them (when Jat was a minister) involving a granite mining lease in village Raghunathpur fell through.
Joshi alleged that Jat and his associates had threatened to “blow up the mines with dynamite,” ruin his family, and seize his other mining leases.
The complainant also stated that the minister said he had influence over top police officials, including the director general of police (DGP) and inspector general of police (IGP). Joshi claimed that mineral stock, equipment, vehicles, CCTV cameras, and DVRs were stolen from the site.
An earlier investigation into a related 2023 FIR had concluded that the dispute was civil (not criminal) in nature, prompting Joshi to seek judicial intervention for a fresh and independent probe.
HC proceedings & state’s appeal
Before the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan government argued that the HC had overstepped its jurisdiction by reviewing and recalling its own final judgment in a criminal case. Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the recall was not a correction of any clerical error but a substantive review of the HC’s earlier decision.
Agreeing with this view, the SC held that the HC’s reasoning was “erroneous on the face of the record”. It said Joshi’s recall application did not point out any typographical or clerical mistake, but instead sought reconsideration of the same CBI transfer request that had already been rejected.
“There was no apparent or manifest error, let alone a clerical one, in the said order which could justify its recalling or modification,” the bench said.
The court reiterated that under section 403 of the BNSS (formerly Section 362 of the CrPC), a criminal court may only correct or rectify clerical or arithmetical errors, but cannot review or recall its final order.
Second petition not maintainable
The Supreme Court also faulted the HC for entertaining Joshi’s recall petition in the first place. It observed that Joshi’s first writ petition seeking a CBI investigation had been withdrawn 23 October, 2024, without liberty to refile. The second petition, filed in January 2025, sought the same relief and was therefore not maintainable, the SC said.
“Once the writ petition filed by the complainant had been dismissed, a subsequent petition seeking the same relief—though styled under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC)—could not have been entertained,” said the SC bench.
The court said the high court’s decision to recall its order effectively reopened a matter that had attained finality, exceeding the HC’s authority in criminal law.
Recall differs from appeal in that recall is made to the same court to set aside its own order, while an appeal is made to a higher court to review or reverse the decision.
While allowing the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the Rajasthan High Court’s orders dated January 24 and February 4, 2025, which had recalled its earlier January 16, 2025 decision and transferred the probe to the CBI, terming those subsequent orders illegal and without jurisdiction.
However, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations made by Joshi and allowed him liberty to seek other legal remedies, including challenging the HC’s decisions dated January 16, 2025, or any other orders passed in the proceedings.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: CJI Gavai’s Collegium clears names for Rajasthan, Allahabad & Delhi HCs after govt re-sends files