NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said the role of a court, after a judgment has been delivered, is circumscribed by the law itself, as Section 362 CrPC provided that a court shall not, once it has signed the judgment or final order disposing of a case, alter or review the same, except to correct an error clerical or arithmetic.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol pointed out the High Court cannot revive an FIR, already quashed on the basis of a compromise among the parties, due to subsequent breach of the conditions.
"Section 362 CrPC provides for a fairly limited scope of the exercise of such power," the court said.
Observing that violations of a term of a compromise have their own avenues of law, the court set aside the orders of October 8, 2018 and of April 29, 2019 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which revived an FIR of July 15, 2014 lodged in Gurgaon for offences of cheating and breach of trust, quashed earlier, in view of breach of the compromise in a property dispute case.
The court allowed an appeal filed by Raghunath Sharma and others.
"We may record our surprise that the High Court adopted the course it did without reference to the well-established position of law," the bench said.
In the present facts, the court said, the only provision of law, that permits an alteration in the judgment, in its own terms, was not resorted to.
"What was done was a review of the judgment quashing the proceedings. That, in the considered view of this court, was not permissible," the bench said.
The bench emphasised that the bar under Section 362 CrPC is almost absolute.
The court said the only exceptions to the bar, which would then permit the invocation of inherent powers, would be if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice; or to remedy the abuse of the process of law.
"Other than these two circumstances, such inherent powers do not permit the doing of what stands prohibited by the text of the statute," the bench said.
The court directed its Registry to circulate a copy of the judgment to all High Courts, for necessary dissemination to all concerned.
"It is our hope that lending clarity, coupled with the necessary information being supplied would curb such unjustified use of power," the bench said.
