Supreme Court quashes High Court’s suo moto recall of order: XXX vs. State of Kerala (2021) INSC 719

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 719

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Can a High Court, after quashing a First Information Report (FIR), then recall its own order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of a High Court’s power to review its own judgments. This case arose when the High Court of Kerala, after initially quashing an FIR, took suo moto action to recall its order. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined whether such a recall was permissible under law.

Case Background

The appellant had filed a petition before the High Court of Kerala under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash an FIR lodged against them. On April 20, 2021, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR through a detailed reasoned order. However, on April 28, 2021, the High Court, acting suo moto (on its own motion), recalled its previous order dated April 20, 2021. This action of recalling the order was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash an FIR. The High Court, after considering the matter, quashed the FIR on April 20, 2021. Subsequently, the High Court, on its own motion, took up the matter and recalled its order dated April 20, 2021. The appellant then challenged this recall order before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which states:

“362. Court not to alter judgment.—Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”

This provision restricts the power of a court to alter or review its judgment once it has been signed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The court noted that no other provision of law empowers the court to recall an order passed after a contest, especially suo moto.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the interpretation of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant contended that the High Court’s suo moto recall of its earlier order was beyond its powers, as Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. strictly limits the court’s ability to alter or review its judgments. The appellant argued that the High Court’s action was not to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, but rather a substantive review of its earlier decision, which is not permitted under the law.

The respondent did not dispute the limitations imposed by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. However, their arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court could recall its order dated April 20, 2021, which had quashed the FIR, by way of a subsequent order dated April 28, 2021.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. to decide the case. The court observed that the High Court’s action was not to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, but rather a substantive review of its earlier decision, which is not permitted under the law.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order dated April 28, 2021, recalling its earlier order, was not valid. The Court emphasized that Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. does not empower a court to recall its earlier order passed after contest, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

The Supreme Court stated:

“Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. the Court does not have the power to alter the judgment and order once passed, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error.”

“In the present case, by a judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 FIR had been quashed by the High Court by a detailed reasoned order, which has been recalled by the impugned order dated 28.04.2021. There is no power, except under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. The same does not empower the court to recall the earlier order passed after contest and that too suo moto.”

“In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 could not have been passed and the earlier order dated 20.04.2021 has wrongly been recalled by the High Court.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated April 28, 2021, and restored the High Court’s initial order dated April 20, 2021, which had quashed the FIR.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear limitations imposed by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that once a judgment or final order is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court found that the High Court’s suo moto recall of its earlier order was a substantive review, not a correction of errors, and therefore, was beyond its powers. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of finality of judgments and the need to prevent courts from revisiting their decisions except in very limited circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot recall its own order quashing an FIR, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, as per Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
• The principle of finality of judgments is upheld, preventing courts from revisiting their decisions except in limited circumstances.
• This judgment clarifies the limitations on a court’s power to review its own judgments, ensuring consistency and preventing potential abuse of process.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated April 28, 2021, and restored the High Court’s initial order dated April 20, 2021, which had quashed the FIR.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot recall its own order, especially one that quashes an FIR, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. This judgment reinforces the limitations imposed by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and clarifies that courts cannot revisit their decisions unless there is a specific legal provision allowing them to do so. This reinforces the principle of finality of judgments and ensures that judicial orders are not subject to arbitrary changes.

Conclusion

In the case of XXX vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the limitations on a High Court’s power to review its own judgments. By setting aside the High Court’s suo moto recall of its order, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of finality of judgments and clarified the scope of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. This decision ensures that courts do not arbitrarily alter their decisions, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.