Case Note & Summary
This is a brief order passed by the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026. The matter was moved on a praecipe for speaking to the order dated 30th June 2026. It was pointed out that paragraphs 2 and 3, which pertained to the present petition, were inadvertently omitted from the order, while paragraphs 4 and 5 were inadvertently incorporated in the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 479 of 2026. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Kalpesh Patil, had submitted that the petitioner had preferred a Criminal Revision Application challenging an order passed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, directing registration of an FIR. During the pendency of the revision, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, and no FIR had been registered. The counsel prayed for continuation of the interim stay. The court, taking into consideration that the interim stay had been operating during the pendency of the revision, was inclined to pass an order continuing the stay. However, due to the clerical error, the relevant paragraphs were missing from the order. The court accordingly directed that the omitted paragraphs be read as paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 30th June 2026, and that the existing paragraph 2 be renumbered as paragraph 4. The rest of the order remained unaltered, and the original order was directed to be corrected and uploaded accordingly. The judgment was delivered by Justice Mehroz K. Pathan on 9th July 2026.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Correction of Order - Clerical Error - Inherent Power - The court allowed a praecipe for speaking to the order to rectify inadvertent omission of paragraphs 2 and 3 in the order dated 30th June 2026, which pertained to the present Criminal Writ Petition, and to renumber the existing paragraph as paragraph 4. Held that such correction is permissible to ensure accuracy of the record (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court can correct an inadvertent omission of paragraphs in its order and rectify a clerical error by way of a speaking to the minutes application.
Final Decision
The court allowed the praecipe and directed that the omitted paragraphs be read as paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 30th June 2026, and that the existing paragraph 2 be renumbered as paragraph 4. The rest of the order remained unaltered, and the original order was directed to be corrected and uploaded accordingly.
Law Points
- Correction of clerical error in court order
- Speaking to the minutes
- Inherent power to correct accidental omissions
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 89
Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026
Mr. Kalpesh Uttam Patil for Petitioner, Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav & S. V. Gavand, APP for respondents-State
Ravindra Gajanan Teltumbde and Another
Vijay Ramkrishna Desai and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking correction of a clerical error in a court order regarding interim stay of FIR registration.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner moved a praecipe for speaking to the order dated 30th June 2026 to rectify inadvertent omission of paragraphs 2 and 3 from the order.
Filing Reason
Paragraphs 2 and 3 pertaining to the present petition were inadvertently omitted from the order dated 30th June 2026, while paragraphs 4 and 5 were inadvertently incorporated in the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 479 of 2026.
Previous Decisions
An order dated 30th June 2026 was passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026, but due to clerical error, the relevant paragraphs were omitted.
Issues
Whether the court can correct an inadvertent omission of paragraphs in its order by way of a speaking to the minutes application.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had preferred a Criminal Revision Application challenging the order passed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, directing registration of the F.I.R. He submitted that during the pendency of the said Revision Application, the operation of the impugned order was stayed and, therefore, no First Information Report has been registered pursuant to the said order. He prayed for continuation of the interim stay.
Ratio Decidendi
A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors or accidental omissions in its orders by way of a speaking to the minutes application, to ensure the accuracy of the record.
Judgment Excerpts
It is pointed out that paragraph Nos.2 and 3, which pertain to the present Criminal Writ Petition, were inadvertently omitted from the order dated 30th June 2026, whereas paragraph Nos.4 and 5 thereof were inadvertently incorporated in the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.479 of 2026.
Taking into consideration that the interim stay has been operating during the pendency of the Revision Application, I am inclined to pass the following order:
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Application challenging an order under Section 175(3) of BNSS directing registration of FIR. During pendency, the operation of the order was stayed. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026, and an order was passed on 30th June 2026. Due to clerical error, paragraphs 2 and 3 were omitted from that order. The petitioner moved a praecipe for speaking to the order to correct the error.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 175(3)
