Section 362 CrPC Bars a Second Section 482 Petition to Quash the Same FIR: Rajasthan High Court

FIR No. 476/2014 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Jaipur South, under Section 419 IPC. Two connected petitions sought its quashing against the petitioners (paras 1-2). An earlier petition with the same prayer, No. 1438/2017, was dismissed on 08.08.2017. That order noted the prosecution case that other persons had appeared for the petitioners in the written examination for constable posts, and found no ground to scuttle the proceedings (paras 3-4). The petitioners said the Delhi High Court had quashed two Delhi FIRs registered in similar circumstances, in March 2017 (unknown to them when the earlier petition was decided) and in August 2018, and invoked changed circumstances (para 5). The Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions (para 6).

Without going into the merits, the Court held that Section 362 CrPC prevented it from altering its order of 08.08.2017 (para 8). The provision allows only a clerical or arithmetical error to be corrected after a judgment or final order is signed, and there was none here (para 9). Although nothing in the Code limits the High Court's inherent powers, the embargo of Section 362 applies to Section 482 as well (para 10). Relying on Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, the Court noted that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to override the bar of review (para 10). Once a court delivers a judgment or final order disposing of a case, it becomes functus officio, and its inherent power cannot be used for what the Code specifically prohibits; Section 482 confers no new powers and only saves the inherent power the court already had (para 11). An order on the present prayer would amount to a review, and Section 482 could not be used to set aside the 2017 order. The Court said it "cannot sit as an Appellate Court" over its own final order, which only the Supreme Court could set aside (para 12).