Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's orders dated 8th October 2018 and 29th April 2019, which had restored an FIR previously quashed on the basis of a compromise. The genesis of the dispute was a series of agreements to sell and a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties, culminating in a fresh agreement to sell dated 15th April 2015 and a compromise deed dated 14th July 2015. Based on this compromise, the High Court, by order dated 21st March 2016, quashed FIR No.432 of 2014 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all consequential proceedings. However, the complainant later filed applications seeking revival of the FIR, alleging breach of the compromise. The High Court, by the impugned orders, allowed the revival and directed reinvestigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's action was without jurisdiction. The Court examined the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the bar under Section 362 CrPC against alteration or review of a final order except for clerical or arithmetical errors. It noted that once the High Court signed the order quashing the FIR, it became functus officio and could not recall or review that order. The inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent the express prohibition in Section 362. The Court also observed that the remedy for breach of compromise lies in civil proceedings or by filing a fresh complaint, not by seeking revival of a quashed FIR. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the order dated 21st March 2016 quashing the FIR.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Section 362 CrPC - Bar on Review - The High Court, after quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC based on a compromise, cannot later recall that order and restore the FIR on an application by the complainant, as Section 362 CrPC prohibits alteration or review of a final order except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The court becomes functus officio after signing the final order. The inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent the express bar under Section 362. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Compromise - Quashing of FIR - Breach of Compromise - Once an FIR is quashed on the basis of a compromise, the remedy for breach of compromise lies in civil proceedings or by filing a fresh complaint, not by seeking revival of the quashed FIR. The High Court erred in restoring the FIR on the ground that the compromise was breached. (Paras 4-6) C) Criminal Procedure - Review - Final Order - Functus Officio - After a final order disposing of a case is signed, the court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order is set aside by a superior court in a manner prescribed by law. The High Court's order recalling the quashment was without jurisdiction. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could recall and set aside its earlier order quashing an FIR, thereby restoring the FIR and directing reinvestigation, despite the bar under Section 362 CrPC against alteration or review of a final order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court dated 8th October 2018 and 29th April 2019, and restored the order dated 21st March 2016 quashing FIR No.432 of 2014 and all consequential proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 362 CrPC bars alteration or review of final order except for clerical/arithmetical error
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent Section 362 CrPC
- High Court becomes functus officio after signing final order disposing of case
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and not to review or recall a final order
