RAGHUNATH SHARMA v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
Clarifies the scope of inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC) and limitations on review (Section 362 CrPC).
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 723
Decision Date: 16-05-2025
List of Laws
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; General Principles of Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment extensively discusses Section 482 Cr.P.C., addressing its scope and ambit in relation to the inherent powers of the High Court. It cites several cases, including *State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy*, *Sunder Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu*, *Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P.*, and *Ahmad Ali Quraishi & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.*, to illustrate the circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The judgment emphasizes that this power is to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. The judgment also refers to Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits a court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order disposing of a case, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The judgment analyzes the interplay between Sections 482 and 362, stating that the inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent the prohibition in Section 362. It cites *Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa*, *Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor*, *Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.*, *Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal*, *Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee*, *State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar*, *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab*, *Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum*, *Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar*, *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey*, *State of M.P. v. Man Singh*, *State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair*, and *Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar* to support this interpretation. The judgment concludes that the High Court erred in reviewing its earlier order quashing the proceedings, as it is not permissible under Section 362 Cr.P.C., except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to Sections 406 and 420 IPC in the context of the FIR No.432 dated July 15, 2014, registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgoan, District Gurgaon. The FIR was initially quashed based on a compromise between the parties, but later the High Court restored the FIR. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, discusses whether the High Court was justified in restoring the FIR, considering the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. against reviewing its own orders.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of *audi alteram partem* (the right to be heard) as an exception to the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. It states that if a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. The judgment also touches upon the principle that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code.
🔒 For Members Only