Case Note & Summary
This is a speaking to the minutes application in Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, presided over by Justice Mehroz K. Pathan. The matter concerns a clerical error in the order dated 30th June 2026. The petitioner, Ravindra Gajanan Teltumbde and Another, had filed a Criminal Revision Application challenging an order passed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) directing registration of an FIR. During the pendency of the revision, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, and no FIR was registered. The petitioner sought continuation of the interim stay. However, in the order dated 30th June 2026, paragraphs 2 and 3, which contained the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and the court's reasoning for continuing the stay, were inadvertently omitted, while paragraphs 4 and 5 were mistakenly included from another case (Criminal Writ Petition No. 479 of 2026). The court, upon a praecipe for speaking to the minutes, rectified the error by directing that the omitted paragraphs be inserted as paragraphs 2 and 3, and the existing paragraph 2 be renumbered as paragraph 4. The rest of the order remained unaltered. The court ordered the original order to be corrected and uploaded accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Speaking to the Minutes - Correction of Clerical Error - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 175(3) - The court allowed a praecipe for speaking to the minutes to correct an inadvertent omission of paragraphs 2 and 3 in the order dated 30th June 2026, which pertained to the continuation of interim stay on registration of FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS. The court directed that the omitted paragraphs be read as part of the order and the existing paragraph 2 be renumbered as paragraph 4. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 30th June 2026 contained a clerical error by omitting paragraphs 2 and 3 pertaining to the present Criminal Writ Petition and whether those paragraphs should be inserted.
Final Decision
The court allowed the speaking to the minutes application and directed that the omitted paragraphs 2 and 3 be read as part of the order dated 30th June 2026, and the existing paragraph 2 be renumbered as paragraph 4. The rest of the order remained unaltered, and the original order was to be corrected and uploaded accordingly.
Law Points
- Speaking to the minutes
- Clerical error correction
- Interim stay continuation
- Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 125
Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026
Mr. Kalpesh Uttam Patil for the 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 an order dated 30th June 2026.
Remedy Sought
Correction of the order by inserting omitted paragraphs 2 and 3 and renumbering existing paragraph 2 as paragraph 4.
Filing Reason
Inadvertent omission of paragraphs 2 and 3 from the order dated 30th June 2026, which pertained to the continuation of interim stay on registration of FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 30th June 2026 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026, which contained a clerical error.
Issues
Whether the order dated 30th June 2026 contained a clerical error by omitting paragraphs 2 and 3.
Whether the court should correct the error by inserting the omitted paragraphs and renumbering the existing paragraph.
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) BNSS directing registration of FIR, and during pendency, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, so no FIR was registered; he prayed for continuation of the interim stay.
Ratio Decidendi
A clerical error in an order can be corrected by a speaking to the minutes application to ensure the order reflects the intended content. The court has inherent power to rectify inadvertent omissions or mistakes in its orders.
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) BNSS directing FIR registration. During pendency, the operation of the order was stayed. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2026 seeking continuation of the interim stay. On 30th June 2026, an order was passed but contained a clerical error. On 9th July 2026, a praecipe for speaking to the minutes was moved to correct the error.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 175(3)
