No Recall or Review Under Section 528 BNSS: Supreme Court

High Court Cannot Recall or Review Its Own Criminal Order Under Section 528 BNSS: Supreme Court

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court quashed two Rajasthan High Court orders: one recalling the High Court's own order of 16.01.2025 as a clerical mistake, the other transferring the investigation of two FIRs to the CBI. A criminal court cannot recall or review its own judgment; it may only correct clerical errors under Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC], and a petition under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] cannot revive the prayers of a writ petition withdrawn without liberty (paras 25-29).

Key holdings

Calling a reasoned order a clerical mistake does not make it one: the order of 16.01.2025 had no clerical or apparent error (paras 20, 27).

A writ petition withdrawn without liberty bars a second petition for the same relief relabelled under Section 528 BNSS (paras 25, 28).

The complainant's remedy was to challenge the order of 23.10.2024 as per law (para 28).

Given the gravity of the allegations, he kept liberty to challenge the orders of 23.10.2024 and 16.01.2025 by a suitable remedy (para 30).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

A granite-mining businessman alleged that accused No. 4, then a State minister, threatened him over a share deal, and that minerals and equipment were stolen from his mines (paras 6-8). Two FIRs of 2024 were registered at P.S. Kareda, Bhilwara (para 10). His writ petition seeking a CBI investigation was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.10.2024 (paras 11-12). He then filed a petition under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] with almost similar prayers; on 16.01.2025 the High Court only let him make a representation to the Superintendent of Police (paras 13-15). On a modification application it recalled that order on 24.01.2025 as a clerical mistake, and on 04.02.2025 moved the investigation to the CBI (paras 3, 17-19).

Court's Findings

Once the writ petition with identical prayers had been dismissed as withdrawn, without liberty to seek the same relief again, the later petition could not be entertained under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC]; it was only a change of label with the same substance (paras 25, 28). The complainant had not even pleaded a change of circumstances (para 14). The order of 16.01.2025 had no ambiguity and granted limited relief, and the modification application alleged no typographical error or inadvertent mistake: it sought a review, plain and simple (paras 16, 18, 20). A criminal court has no power to recall or review its own judgment and may only correct clerical errors under Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]; the Court quoted Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, which holds that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to override the bar of review (para 26). The High Court's finding of a clerical mistake was not borne out by the record, since its order had been passed on the entirety of the facts, and its order of 04.02.2025 virtually reviewed that order (paras 19, 27). The recall order was erroneous on the face of the record (para 20).

Legal Principle

A High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] cannot recall or review its own final order in a criminal matter; only clerical errors can be corrected under Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]. A petition repeating the prayers of a writ petition withdrawn without liberty cannot be entertained under that jurisdiction (paras 25-26, 28).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For complainants who want a different investigating agency, this ruling closes a shortcut. Once a writ petition is withdrawn without liberty, the same prayer cannot be revived through a Section 528 BNSS petition, and an unfavourable order cannot be reopened by calling it a clerical mistake (paras 25-27). The remedy is to challenge the original order itself (paras 28, 30). A High Court asked to ‘modify’ a disposed-of criminal petition should first ask whether the request is really a review. Compare Dharam Singh Meena, where the Rajasthan High Court held that Section 362 CrPC bars a second Section 482 petition to quash the same FIR.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another (1990) 2 SCC 437
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26
Relied on, with an extract, for the settled rule that a criminal court cannot recall or review its own judgment and that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to override the bar of review; the Court applied it to quash a High Court recall of its own order passed under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC].