High Court Becomes Functus Officio After Signing Judgment—Cannot Recall Quashed FIR: Supreme Court Reprimands Punjab & Haryana High Court for Jurisdictional Overreach

"Once a criminal case has been quashed, the High Court cannot breathe life into it again under the garb of inherent powers" – In a stern reaffirmation of judicial discipline and statutory finality, the Supreme Court of India ruled that once a High Court quashes an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, it cannot recall or revive the same FIR at a later stage, even if there is an alleged breach of compromise.

The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Pankaj Mithal minced no words in setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s 2018 order that had reopened a criminal case which had been quashed in 2016, calling such action a clear violation of Section 362 CrPC, which bars courts from reviewing or altering signed judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

“The High Court had acted without jurisdiction or any legal basis in recalling the order of quashment. The moment the final order was signed, it became functus officio. The inherent power under Section 482 cannot be invoked to override the express prohibition of Section 362 CrPC.”

“Violation of a Compromise Is Not a Ground for Resurrection of a Quashed Criminal Case”

The case arose from FIR No. 432/2014 registered in Gurugram under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, which stemmed from a failed real estate transaction between the parties. Eventually, both sides arrived at a compromise, pursuant to which the High Court quashed the FIR on March 17, 2016. However, citing breach of the compromise, the original complainant approached the High Court in 2018 seeking recall of the quashment order.

Shockingly, the High Court allowed the application and revived the FIR—an action that the Supreme Court has now labelled as legally untenable and unprecedented.

“Violations of terms of a compromise may have legal consequences, but those consequences must be pursued in the appropriate legal forum. The criminal case, once quashed, cannot be restored in this manner. Enforcement of a compromise cannot be routed through resurrection of criminal process.”

“Ends of Justice Do Not Sanction Judicial Resurrection Where Law Mandates Finality”

The Court highlighted the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC, which states that no court shall review or alter a judgment once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The Bench emphatically held:

“Section 362 CrPC is crystal clear. Once a final judgment is signed, it cannot be reviewed, recalled or altered—except for a clerical or arithmetical error. This principle is near-absolute.”

The Supreme Court also underscored that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not to be used in conflict with express statutory provisions, especially when doing so violates established doctrines of finality and legal certainty.

“What Section 362 prohibits cannot be revived through a backdoor invocation of inherent jurisdiction. That would be an abuse of process of law.”

"Functus Officio Doctrine Must Be Honoured by Constitutional Courts"

The Court drew on authoritative precedents, including Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, and Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, to remind the High Courts that they cease to have jurisdiction over a matter the moment they sign and deliver a final judgment.

“Once the official order disposing of a case is signed, the court becomes functus officio. It is stripped of any further jurisdiction in that matter, except as statutorily provided.”

The judgment cautioned against the judicial temptation to act on equitable grounds when the law is otherwise settled.

“What the law forbids, equity cannot permit. The supposed ends of justice cannot justify doing that which the law expressly prohibits.”

Conclusion: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Revival of Quashed FIR as Without Authority of Law

Reversing the 2018 judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court ruled that the revival of the FIR and the direction for further investigation was illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to fundamental criminal jurisprudence.

“We are surprised that the High Court adopted a course that runs contrary to established legal principles. The doctrine of finality cannot be so lightly discarded.”

In an important operational directive, the Supreme Court instructed its Registry to circulate this judgment to all High Courts to prevent future misuse of power and ensure that judgments attain finality once pronounced.

Date of Decision: 16 May 2025