Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be a Trojan Horse to Reopen Concluded Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Misusing Review Jurisdiction in Criminal Matter

“Review Orders Must Be Based on Law, Not Vague Appeals to ‘Justice’”: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered a significant judgment, holding that the High Court cannot use review jurisdiction to reopen concluded criminal proceedings or interfere in investigation under the guise of “interest of justice”. The Court allowed the criminal appeals and quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s review order dated 13 May 2025, which had improperly transferred the investigation to the CID and issued directions beyond the scope of review.

“The impugned order dated 13th May, 2025 of the Division Bench does not advert to any such ground based whereon review jurisdiction could have validly been invoked.” [Para 7]

Criminal Writ Petition Alleged Lax Investigation Despite Bail Rejection by Supreme Court

The dispute arose from FIR No. 588/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Katni (MP), where the appellant Surendra Singh Saluja claimed that police were deliberately not arresting accused persons, even though their anticipatory bail applications had been rejected up to the Supreme Court.

In response, the Single Judge of the High Court, on 22 April 2025, passed a sharp order questioning the conduct of the Inspector General of Police and staying an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd., though no such relief was sought by the petitioner.

“It was not open to the Single Judge to make any such order; particularly so, when no such prayer was made by the appellant.” [Para 13]

The Division Bench later dismissed intra-court writ appeals filed against that order on 30 April 2025. Subsequently, review petitions were filed and initially rejected on 8 May 2025, but astonishingly, on 13 May 2025, the Division Bench reversed itself and passed new substantive directions—including transfer of the investigation to the CID.

Supreme Court: Review Power Cannot Be Used to Conduct De Facto Rehearing

Criticizing the High Court’s invocation of review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court reiterated that a review petition cannot be used as a disguised appeal or as a route to revisit merits already concluded. The Court emphasized that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC strictly limits review to specific grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or miscarriage of justice—not on “justice” as an abstract, undefined standard.

“It is axiomatic that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless any ground traceable to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is attracted.” [Para 7]

“The power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors.” [Para 8, quoting Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumar Chaturvedi]

CID Investigation Transfer Invalid: Probe Restored to Original Investigating Officer

As a consequence of the now-invalid review order, the investigation had been transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The Supreme Court held that this transfer was legally unsustainable.

“Since the root cause for such transfer stands eliminated, we direct the investigation to be restored to the Investigating Officer who was hitherto conducting investigation.” [Para 11]

All materials collected by the CID were directed to be handed back to the original Investigating Officer, who is now free to continue the investigation independently and to submit a police report under Section 173 CrPC or Section 193 BNSS, as applicable.

No Relief Without Prayer: Single Judge’s Interim Order on Company Meeting Also Criticized

The Court addressed a broader constitutional principle: no relief should be granted in a writ petition unless it is specifically prayed for. Referring to the decision in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi, (2010) 1 SCC 234, the Supreme Court noted that the Single Judge’s injunction against holding of the company’s EGM was without jurisdiction, as there was no prayer to that effect in the criminal writ.

“Relief not claimed by a party ought not to be granted.” [Para 13]

However, since that order had already been upheld by the Division Bench, the Court clarified:

“The said direction shall not be applicable in respect of any future meeting... However, the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum if any such meeting affects his interests.” [Para 14]

Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writ: Doubts Expressed by Supreme Court

The Court further raised a doctrinal issue regarding maintainability of intra-court appeals in criminal writ petitions, relying on Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, (2017) 5 SCC 533:

“We have our doubt as to whether any intra-court appeal could lie before the Division Bench in terms of decision of this Court in Ram Kishan Fauji...” [Para 6]

Even if appeal was maintainable, the Division Bench’s scope should have been limited to the interim order, not reopening the entire investigation.

Conclusion: High Court Overstepped Its Bounds—Review Order Quashed, Investigation Restored

The Supreme Court firmly held that the review jurisdiction was abused to issue fresh directions in a concluded matter under the guise of “interest of justice”, without any ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or review standards under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the following directions were issued:

• High Court’s order dated 13 May 2025 set aside in its entirety.

• Investigation restored to original Investigating Officer.

• CID to hand over all collected materials.

• No stay on future EGMs of the company.

• Liberty granted to appellant to challenge any future decisions affecting his rights.

“On this substantial ground of assail alone we hold that the challenge to the order dated 13th May, 2025 must succeed.” [Para 9]

Date of Decision: July 15, 2025