High Court Cannot Recall Quashing Order Under Inherent Powers; Supreme Court Restored Quashment of FIRs

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol heard appeals against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to restore an FIR that had earlier been quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The appeals called into question the High Court’s exercise of its inherent powers to recall its own order of quashment and restart criminal investigation.

The Court held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to revisit and recall the order quashing the FIR in these facts and allowed the appeals. The Court emphasised that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was “the exception and not the rule” and reiterated that once a criminal matter stood finally disposed, the trial court became functus officio. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above discussion of law, the conclusion is that the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court without any authority or basis. Once the criminal cases had been quashed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of compromise entered into between the parties, one of the parties violating terms thereof is a ground entirely foreign to law, to once again invoke such powers and recall the order of quashing.” The Court also noted that “The bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. is almost absolute,” and that only narrow exceptions — such as judgments pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of audi alteram partem — could permit recall.

Background The dispute arose from a series of agreements to sell executed between the parties in 2013–2014 and a subsequent compromise arrangement. An FIR (No.432 of 2014) registered on 15 July 2014 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 21 March 2016 on the ground that the parties had effected an amicable compromise and the trial court’s inquiry confirmed absence of coercion. Thereafter the parties executed a fresh agreement to sell (15 April 2015) and a compromise deed (14 July 2015). The complainant later sought revival of the quashed FIR; an initial application in 2016 was rejected but a later petition led the High Court to recall its earlier quashment and direct the investigation to be restarted by order dated 8 October 2018. The appellants impugned that recall before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed the settled jurisprudence on the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 and the prohibition in Section 362 Cr.P.C. It relied on precedents which held that inherent jurisdiction could not be used to do what the Code expressly prohibited, and that recall was permissible only in extraordinary situations — for example where a judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice, or obtained by abuse of process rendering it a nullity. The Court found that none of those narrow exceptions applied. It recorded that violation of a compromise term by a party was a matter cognisable by ordinary civil remedies and was “entirely foreign to law” as a basis for reviving criminal proceedings quashed on compromise. Consequently the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders of 8 October 2018 and 29 April 2019, and restored the quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The Court directed circulation of the judgment to all High Courts.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 723 Case Title: Raghunath Sharma & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment