SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF RECALL/REVIEW UNDER SECTION 362, CrPC IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The Supreme Court, in a recent decision in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr [SLP (Crl.) No. 3425 of 2022], has dealt in detail with the limits of criminal courts’ powers to review or recall their own orders, especially in the context of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

This judgement, passed by Justice Augustine George Masih, carries significant implications for perjury proceedings as it not only settles the law on Section 362 CrPC but also reinforces critical procedural boundaries for criminal courts.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case arose from protracted litigation between two business factions, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, centered on Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), a special purpose vehicle for a resort project in Himachal Pradesh.

Following several shareholding disputes and allegations of oppression and mismanagement, a minority shareholder, Ms. Sonia Khosla, filed a petition before the Company Law Board (CLB) claiming that her shareholding had been unlawfully diluted.

As the dispute evolved, allegations of forgery and perjury surfaced regarding the genuineness of AGM minutes submitted by the Bakshi Group. This led to a web of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for perjury. Notably, at one stage, the Supreme Court, via a consent order in 2014, directed that all disputes, mainly concerning the legitimacy of meeting minutes, be resolved by the CLB/NCLT, and instructed the High Court not to entertain connected perjury applications unless the company petition concluded.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDING

1. Recall/Review not permissible under Sec. 362, CrPC: The Supreme Court reiterated that, as per Section 362 CrPC, after a judgment or final order is signed, the criminal court becomes functus officio and cannot review or alter its decision except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. This is in contrast with the civil courts’ broader review powers. Only express statutory exceptions allow more expansive review in criminal matters, and none applied in this scenario.
2. Nature of Sec. 340 proceedings: The Court clarified that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are indeed criminal in nature, as they pave the way for subsequent prosecution and possible penal consequences. Therefore, CrPC’s self-contained procedural code strictly governs such proceedings, and CPC’s review provisions (such as Order XLVII) are inapplicable
3. Exceptions to finality: The judgment distinguishes between “procedural review”, wherein a court may correct orders passed without jurisdiction, in fraud, or due to serious procedural irregularities, and “substantive review”, which remains barred unless expressly allowed by law. The exception for procedural review is tightly circumscribed, for instance, to errors arising from non-service on a necessary party or party death, not for factual updates omitted by a party when the judgment was signed.
4. Critique of High Court procedure: The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi High Court for entertaining a “Review” via CPC Order XLVII on a criminal proceeding, even though Section 362 CrPC prohibited such action. It also found fault with the Khosla Group for deliberately withholding updates about withdrawal of the company petition at the relevant hearing time, only to later seek recall on this ground.
5. Reinforcing finality and judicial discipline: By setting aside the High Court’s recall Order, the Supreme Court emphasized that parties cannot revive disputes by exploiting procedural loopholes or belatedly disclosing facts, thus preserving the principle of finality in criminal proceedings.

DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Order recalling its earlier Judgment, holding the recall was impermissible under Section 362 CrPC and that the attempt amounted to an abuse of process.
• The Judgment restates that parties must fully and honestly present relevant facts during original proceedings, or risk forfeiting the ability to revisit closed matters.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE JUDGEMENT

1. Section 362 CrPC categorically bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their judgments or final orders except for clerical or arithmetical errors.
2. Section 340 CrPC proceedings are criminal in nature. Consequently, the procedural code of criminal law ‘CrPC’ exclusively governs such matters; civil procedure’s review powers are excluded.
3. Limited, narrowly construed exceptions exist for “procedural review” (e.g., orders passed without jurisdiction or due to fraud), but not for substantive or fact-based review absent statutory basis.
4. Parties have a duty to present all material facts in the original hearing. Failing to do so precludes seeking recall or review on grounds that could have been raised earlier

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision solidifies the principle that criminal courts, once having delivered a signed judgment or order, are strictly barred from revisiting their decisions except under clearly defined exceptions rooted in statute. By reaffirming the self-contained and rigid nature of criminal procedure, including in respect of perjury and proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, the Judgment preserves both judicial discipline and procedural fairness within the criminal justice system.

 

Soumen Dash
(Legal Associate)

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled Plane Crash and Legal Liability? Air India Crash in Ahmedabad Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azYUBkke9jI