Court exercises inherent jurisdiction to recall and modify prior order, clarifying quashing scope in light of an inadvertent clerical lapse.
In a significant development, the Rajasthan High Court has exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to rectify an inadvertent clerical error in a previous order. The Court clarified the scope of an earlier decision quashing an FIR, ensuring that the quashing applied only to the individuals involved in a compromise, specifically Jay Gehlot and Kaushal Sankhla, rather than the entire list of accused persons.
This decision arose from a Miscellaneous Application filed by the complainant, Supriya, who sought to rectify the quashing of the FIR that was mistakenly extended to all accused persons instead of just the two individuals who had reached a compromise with her. The original order, dated March 7, 2024, had quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between Supriya and the petitioner Jay Gehlot. However, due to an inadvertent clerical error, the language used in the order suggested the FIR was quashed in its entirety.
The Hon'ble Mr. Farjand Ali, J., presiding over the case, emphasized the distinction between the judicial powers of review and recall. While review involves re-evaluation of a case based on defined legal grounds, recall pertains to addressing inadvertent procedural lapses or clerical errors. The Court clarified that the recall does not reopen adjudication but ensures that the judicial record accurately reflects the Court's true intent.
The Court's order highlighted that the investigation report had established prima facie involvement of fifteen individuals, and the quashing of proceedings against them was neither prayed for nor considered in the earlier order. Therefore, the rectification of the clerical lapse did not constitute a review but was a legitimate exercise of the Court's inherent authority to correct accidental errors and prevent miscarriage of justice.
By recalling and modifying paragraph No.7 of the order dated March 7, 2024, the Court has ensured that the quashing of the FIR remains operative only in relation to Jay Gehlot and Kaushal Sankhla, with the investigating agency authorized to continue proceedings against other accused persons as per law. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining the integrity of judicial processes.
Bottom Line:
Inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to recall and modify its own order if it contains an inadvertent clerical or procedural error, without invoking the power of review.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Supriya v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2877200
