Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court

"After disposing of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review and specifically provides that no court after it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error," Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in a significant ruling, held that a criminal court cannot review or alter its judgment on merits once it has been signed, as per the mandate of Section 362 of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that while a "procedural review" to correct a palpable error or lack of jurisdiction is permissible, a "substantive review" of a decision rendered on merits is strictly prohibited. The Court emphasized that once a final order is signed, the judge becomes functus officio.

The matter arose from a recall application filed by Krishna Lal Sharma (Opposite Party No. 2) seeking to set aside a judgment dated March 19, 2026. In the earlier judgment, the High Court had quashed criminal proceedings initiated by Sharma against Rudra Pratap Singh. Sharma contended that the order was passed without hearing his counsel, whose mobile phone was purportedly out of order on the date of the hearing, and argued that the Court had conducted a "mini-trial" beyond its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The primary question before the Court was whether a recall application is maintainable after a case has been decided on merits and the judgment has been signed. The Court was also called upon to determine the distinction between a "procedural review" and a "substantive review" in the context of the bar contained in Section 362 CrPC.

The Statutory Bar Under Section 362 CrPC

The Court began its analysis by referring to the express language of Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits any court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The bench noted that this prohibition is near-absolute and serves the principle of finality in judicial proceedings.

"The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits," the Court noted while citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh.

Distinction Between Procedural and Substantive Review

Relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla, the Court explained that a "procedural review" is inherent in a court to set aside an order passed under misapprehension, such as non-service of notice or lack of jurisdiction. However, a "substantive review" occurs when the error sought to be corrected is one of law or fact apparent on the face of the record, which is not permissible in criminal law.

"It is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a 'procedural review' that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted," the Court observed.

Exceptions to the Rule of Finality

The Court identified specific exceptional circumstances where a criminal court may alter its order, including cases where the court lacked inherent jurisdiction, where fraud was played upon the court, or where a mistake by the court caused prejudice. It was clarified that these exceptions cannot be invoked to circumvent the judicial process or to correct conscious omissions by the parties.

"The said power cannot be invoked as a means to circumvent the finality of the judicial process or mistakes and/or errors in the decision which are attributable to a conscious omission by the parties," the bench held.

Application to the Present Case

In the present case, the Court found that the applicant had already filed a counter-affidavit and was adequately represented during the proceedings. The Court noted that the previous judgment was delivered after considering all evidence on record. The applicant’s request for a re-hearing on the merits of the Section 138 NI Act allegations was deemed a request for a substantive review.

"It is also not the case that the applicant was not served notice and his counter affidavit has been filed. It is also not the case of the applicant that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction while passing the final order," the Court remarked.

The Court concluded that since the judgment dated March 19, 2026, was signed and based on the merits of the evidence, it could not be recalled under the guise of Section 482 CrPC. Finding no clerical or arithmetical error, and noting that the applicant was not deprived of natural justice as his written submissions were on record, the Court dismissed the recall application as devoid of merit.

Date of Decision: May 21, 2026