Supreme Court Restricts Recall of Quashed FIRs Based on Compromise: Raghunath Sharma vs. State of Haryana (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 723

Judges: Pankaj Mithal J., Sanjay Karol J.

Can a High Court restore a First Information Report (FIR) that was previously quashed based on a compromise between the involved parties? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, focusing on the extent of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a quashed FIR can be revived, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established legal principles.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined appeals against orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had recalled its earlier decision to quash an FIR. The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a series of agreements to sell between the parties, specifically agreements dated May 21, 2013, May 25, 2013, a Memorandum of Understanding dated August 15, 2013, and another agreement to sell dated January 3, 2014. Disputes arose concerning these agreements, leading to a fresh agreement to sell on April 15, 2015, which aimed to supersede all prior agreements. The agreed sale consideration was Rs. 2,25,00,000, with a payment plan that included an initial transfer of Rs. 35 lakhs and the remaining Rs. 1,90,00,000 to be paid at the time of registry, along with interest at 1% per month.

To resolve all pending litigations, a compromise deed was signed on July 14, 2015. Consequently, the High Court issued an order on March 21, 2016, quashing FIR No. 432 dated July 15, 2014, which had been registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgoan. The quashing was based on the compromise.

However, the complainant, Krishan Kumar Gandhi, later sought the revival of the FIRs, filing an application on September 10, 2016. This application was rejected on September 24, 2016. Subsequently, another similar request was made before the High Court on March 27, 2018, leading to the impugned judgment and order dated October 8, 2018, which ordered the revival of the FIRs.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of two key sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 482 Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. It states that “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” This provision allows the High Court to take actions necessary to ensure justice is served, but it is not an unlimited power.
• Section 362 Cr.P.C.: This section restricts the court’s ability to alter or review its judgments. It specifies that “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 ensures finality in legal proceedings, preventing courts from repeatedly revisiting their decisions.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focuses on whether the High Court’s decision to recall the quashing of the FIR was a justified use of its powers under Section 482, considering the limitations imposed by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides centered on the interpretation and applicability of Section 482 and Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the validity of the High Court’s decision to recall its earlier order.

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court overreached its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by recalling the order that quashed the FIR based on a compromise.
• Section 362 Cr.P.C. bars the court from altering or reviewing its judgment once it has been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
• The violation of the compromise terms does not provide a legal basis to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall the quashing order. Other legal avenues exist to enforce the terms of the compromise.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The complainant argued for the revival of the FIRs, asserting that the compromise had been violated.
• The High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Innovativeness of the argument: The innovativeness of the argument lies in whether the violation of a compromise, which initially led to the quashing of an FIR, can be a valid ground for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to recall the quashing order. The appellants argued that it could not, as other legal remedies were available for breach of compromise, while the respondents implicitly argued that the violation undermined the basis of the quashing order, justifying its recall.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in using its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to restore a First Information Report previously quashed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key judgments to reinforce its stance on the limitations of Section 482 and Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

• State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 (Supreme Court of India): This case discusses the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• Sunder Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244 (Supreme Court of India): This case further elaborates on the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369 (Supreme Court of India): This case provides additional insights into the use of inherent powers by the High Court.
• Ahmad Ali Quraishi & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2020) 13 SCC 435 (Supreme Court of India): This case offers further clarification on the extent of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 (Supreme Court of India): This case encapsulates the purpose of the power under Section 482, emphasizing that its exercise is an exception rather than the rule.
• Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC 172 (Supreme Court of India): This case discusses the legislative intent behind Section 362 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that criminal courts do not have the power to alter or review a judgment or final order except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
• Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169 (Supreme Court of India): This case mandates that no court, once it has signed its judgment or final order, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error.
• Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 165 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarifies that an appellate court cannot alter or review a judgment once signed, except for correcting a clerical error.
• Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 (Supreme Court of India): This case categorically held that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code.
• Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437 (Supreme Court of India): This case refers to and follows the position in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterates the principles laid down in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal.
• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Supreme Court of India): This case also follows the position in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal.
• Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum, (2018) 7 SCC 346 (Supreme Court of India): This case further supports the principles in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal.
• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, (2021) 14 SCC 683 (Supreme Court of India): This case approves the exercise of inherent powers under the Code in cases of violation of audi alteram partem and abuse of process of law.
• State of M.P. v. Man Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 161 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterates that the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order either under Section 362 or under Section 482 CrPC.
• State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752 (Supreme Court of India): This three-Judge Bench decision, referenced in State of M.P. v. Man Singh, reinforces that the High Court cannot review its order under Section 362 or Section 482 CrPC.
• Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2019) 14 SCC 726 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterates that once a judgment has been passed, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not permit its alteration or review.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and orders that had revived the FIRs. The Court’s decision was grounded in the principles governing the scope of Section 482 and Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 (Supreme Court of India): The Court relied on this authority to emphasize that the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule.
• Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC 172 (Supreme Court of India): The Court cited this case to highlight that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe criminal courts with power to alter or review the judgment or final order disposing of the case except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error.
• Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169 (Supreme Court of India): The Court referred to this case to reinforce that Section 362 of the Code mandates that 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 an arithmetical error.
• Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 (Supreme Court of India): The Court used this case to categorically state that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the statutory bar imposed by Section 362 Cr.P.C. and to prevent the misuse of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that once a judgment has been delivered and signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except in cases of clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court also considered the availability of alternative legal avenues for enforcing the terms of a compromise, rather than resorting to recalling a quashing order.

Fact:Law Ratio: The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by 30% of the factual aspects of the case and 70% of legal considerations.

The Court observed:

• “The bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. is almost absolute.”
• “The only exceptions to the bar, which would then permit the invocation of inherent powers, would be if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice; or to remedy the abuse of the process of law.”
• “Violations of a term of a compromise have their own avenues of law from which they can be enforced.”

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in using its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to restore a First Information Report previously quashed.

  +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | Start: FIR Quashed Based on Compromise             |
  +-----------------------------------------------------+
  |
  V
  +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | Was there a violation of the compromise terms?      |
  +--------------------------Yes--------------------------+
  | No |
  V V
  +---------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | Section 362 Cr.P.C. | | Does Section 362 Cr.P.C. bar alteration/review? |
  | Applies | +--------------------------Yes--------------------------+
  +---------------------+ | No |
  | V V
  +---------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | Can the High Court  | | Can Section 482 Cr.P.C. be invoked?             |
  | Review the Order? | +--------------------------Yes--------------------------+
  +----------No---------+ | No |
  | V V
  +---------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | Alternative Legal   | | Other legal remedies available?                   |
  | Remedies Available  | +--------------------------Yes--------------------------+
  +----------Yes--------+ | No |
  | V V
  +---------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | High Court Not      | | High Court Can Intervene                         |
  | Justified in        | +-----------------------------------------------------+
  | Restoring FIR       |
  +---------------------+
  

Key Takeaways

• Limited Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to override the express provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
• Bar on Review: Once a judgment is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
• Enforcement of Compromise: Violations of a compromise should be addressed through separate legal avenues, rather than recalling a quashing order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to recall an order quashing an FIR based on a compromise between the parties, as Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. expressly bars the review or alteration of a judgment once it has been signed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce a change in the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Raghunath Sharma vs. State of Haryana clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power to recall orders quashing FIRs based on compromises. The Court emphasized that Section 362 Cr.P.C. imposes a significant bar on reviewing or altering judgments, and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to circumvent this statutory restriction. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring the finality of court judgments.

Category:

• Criminal Law
  • Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
    • Section 482 (Inherent Powers of High Court)
    • Section 362 (Court not to alter judgment)
  • First Information Report (FIR)
    • Quashing of FIR
    • Revival of FIR
  • Compromise in Criminal Cases
    • Effect of Compromise
    • Breach of Compromise
• Supreme Court Judgments
  • Landmark Cases
  • Recent Decisions
• Legal Analysis
  • Case Brief
  • Judicial Review

Tags:

Supreme Court, Raghunath Sharma, State of Haryana, FIR, Quashing, Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 362 Cr.P.C., Compromise, Inherent Powers, Judgment, Criminal Law, Legal Analysis, Case Brief, Judicial Review, Recall of Order, Breach of Compromise, Inherent Powers of High Court, Code of Criminal Procedure, Landmark Judgment, Recent Decision, 2025 INSC 723, Pankaj Mithal, Sanjay Karol, Agreements to Sell, Review of Judgment.