High Court Became Functus Officio After Dismissing 482 Petition; Recall Petition Was Incompetent: Supreme Court Quashes Interim Protection Granted in Rape Case

Delivering a significant judgment on judicial discipline and the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court of India held that once a petition under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot thereafter entertain a recall application in the same matter.

Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan quashed a Rajasthan High Court order that had wrongly granted 30-day interim protection from arrest to an accused in a serious rape and abduction case. The Court found that the recall application filed after dismissal of the earlier 482 petition was not maintainable, and that the High Court’s grant of protection in such a proceeding was jurisdictionally flawed and procedurally irregular.

“The High Court did not have any power or jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking review/recall of the order passed under Section 482 CrPC. It had become functus officio.” [Para 25]

“Interim Relief Cannot Be Granted by Exceeding Jurisdiction”: Supreme Court Criticises High Court’s Protection Order in Quashed Petition

The Supreme Court was sharply critical of the manner in which the High Court had treated the recall application as a fresh criminal miscellaneous application, assigning it a new number and then proceeding to grant relief in a matter already disposed of. The High Court not only protected the accused from arrest for 30 days, but also advised him to file for anticipatory bail, effectively creating an alternative legal route after the Sessions Court had already denied anticipatory bail in 2022.

“Even by not interfering with the said application, the High Court has nevertheless granted relief to the second respondent… which is wholly erroneous.” [Para 25]

The apex court was categorical that the High Court had no power to recall or review its earlier order dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, and in doing so, had undermined judicial discipline and procedural sanctity.

“Once the High Court was not inclined to grant any relief in the application… it ought not to have suggested or advised the second respondent to seek pre-arrest bail and further protect him from arrest for 30 days.” [Para 26]

“Complainant Has Right to Challenge Illegal Judicial Relief Given to Accused”: Apex Court Upholds Victim's Participation in Appeal

The appeal had been filed by Jagdish Godara, the informant and brother of the rape survivor, challenging the interim protection granted by the High Court to one of the accused. The Supreme Court affirmed the victim's and informant’s standing in challenging the unlawful relief granted to the accused, particularly when the FIR involved grave offences under IPC and POCSO, including Sections 376(2)(n), 376-D IPC, and Sections 3–6 of the POCSO Act.

“We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel of the appellant, who has stated that the complainant is aggrieved by the directions.” [Para 27]

The Court also noted that the accused had not even challenged the Sessions Court’s earlier rejection of anticipatory bail, making the High Court’s grant of a fresh protective window even more problematic.

“Recall Plea Disguised as New Petition Cannot Circumvent Finality of Judicial Orders”: Supreme Court Warns Against Procedural Misuse

The judgment makes an important precedent on the limits of Section 482 CrPC, warning against misuse of recall/review to bypass the finality of judicial decisions. The Court highlighted that the recall plea was not even registered as part of the original disposed petition, but as a new case entirely, which the Court found “procedurally unjustified”.

“The said application could not have been considered to be a fresh case… Instead, a separate Criminal Misc. Application No.235 of 2025 was accorded to it, as if it was a fresh case.” [Para 25]

This procedural manipulation, the Court held, was improper and illegal, and could not form the basis for granting any relief, let alone interim protection in a rape case involving a minor.

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Order; Restores Judicial Discipline and Reaffirms Procedural Limits

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside Paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of the High Court’s order dated 11 July 2025, thereby quashing the grant of 30-day protection and revoking the High Court’s directions to the accused to seek anticipatory bail.

The Court noted that subsequently, the Sessions Court had rightly rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail application on 5 August 2025, and that any pending bail appeal before the High Court must be considered independently and in accordance with law.

“We set aside the order dated 11.07.2025 and particularly the portion which has been extracted above.” [Para 31]
“If an application for regular bail is made… the same shall be considered on its own merits.” [Para 34]

Background: Rape Survivor Was Allegedly Assaulted by Three Accused Including Respondent – POCSO, Abduction, and Gang Rape Alleged

The FIR in question (No. 03/2022) was filed by the complainant on 7 January 2022, alleging that his sister, a minor at the time of the offences, was abducted and raped multiple times over a period of three years by the second respondent and two other co-accused. The most recent incident occurred when she went missing on 6 January 2022 and was found unconscious in a co-accused’s bathroom the next morning.

A detailed investigation led to the filing of charge-sheet against one of the co-accused under IPC and POCSO provisions, while probe remained pending against the second respondent, who sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Sessions Court. Instead of challenging that order, the accused sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, which was dismissed. A subsequent recall application was then used as a backdoor attempt to gain interim protection, which the Supreme Court has now authoritatively struck down.

Recall Jurisdiction Under Section 482 CrPC is Not a Substitute for Appellate Remedy – Interim Relief Cannot Be Engineered in Disposed Matters

This ruling reinforces the principle of finality of orders under Section 482 CrPC and serves as a stern reminder that recall petitions cannot be used as a substitute for appeals, especially in serious criminal matters involving sexual violence. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message against procedural manipulation, stating that interim protections granted in such unlawful circumstances are unsustainable and must be reversed.

“The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the recall application. Having dismissed the original 482 petition, it became functus officio. The interim protection granted was without authority.” [Summarised from Paras 24–26]

Date of Decision: 16 September 2025