Holding

A High Court cannot alter or reopen a final order passed under Section 482 CrPC once the petition is disposed, as Section 362 bars such review; a fresh petition is required for any further relief.

Summary

The respondents filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking transfer of a state police investigation to the CBI. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition in 2001, refusing the transfer. After three years, the DSP of SBCID filed an application in the same disposed petition seeking to modify the order, and the respondents filed an interlocutory application alleging bias and requesting CBI takeover. The High Court, in the same case, altered its earlier order and directed the investigation to be transferred to the CBI. The Supreme Court held that once a final order disposing of a petition under Section 482 is passed, the court becomes functus officio and cannot reopen or modify that order under its inherent powers, as Section 362 expressly prohibits such review except for clerical errors. Consequently, the High Court’s modification was invalid and the respondents should have filed a fresh petition under Section 482 to seek transfer. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Can a High Court reopen and modify a final order passed under Section 482 CrPC in the same petition after it has been disposed?
Does Section 362 CrPC bar the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 to alter a final order?
Whether the respondents could obtain transfer of investigation to the CBI through a fresh petition under Section 482 after subsequent events.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 362, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 177, s. 186, s. 506(II)

Subjects

Section 482Section 362inherent jurisdictionfunctus officioCBI transfercriminal petitionreview of final ordercourt powers

Judgment

[2008) 12 S.C.R. 1141

STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.l.D., CHENNAI A
V.
K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
B
~· --< [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 482 and 362 ~
Petition uls 482 seeking transfer of investigation to CBI -
Petition disposed of by High Court rejecting the plea - c
Subsequently High Court granting the same relief in
interlocutory application filed in the disposed of petition -
Propriety of - Held: The petition, having been disposed of on
merit, it was not open to High Court in exercise of power uls
482 to reopen and alter its order - s. 362 prohibits altering or
• D
1 ...._ review of final order - Court cannot give a go-by to statutory
1

..... provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of
inherent jurisdiction - The only course open to the applicants
was to file independent petition seeking such transfer in view
of the subsequent events.
E
Respondents filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
interalia transfer of the investigation in a case against
them for offence u/ss. 177, 186 and 506 (ii) IPC, from SBCID
to CBI. The petition was disposed of by High court reusing
to transfer the same. After about 3 % years DSP (SBCID) F
. ... ""' filed an application in the disposed of petition seeking
modification of the final order to the effect that direction
for investigation should be given to DSP (CB CID) and
not to DSP (SBCID) as the same was not empowered to
conduct the investigation. Respondent also filed an
G
-;
~ interlocutory application in the disposed of petition
seeking again, transfer of the investigation to CBI on the
ground that he and the witnesses were ill treated and
harassed by the Investigating Officer; and that the
1141 H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

~---
·A investigation was not being conducted in unbiased·
manner. High Court, by the impugned order allowed the
application directing transfer of the investigation to CBI.
Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1The High Court fell in error in reopening
the issue which was finally decided and refused earlier in
r··--
the exercise ·Of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a
petition which was filed in a disposed of petition. High
Court was not justified in handing· over the investigation
c of the case from the State Police authorities to the CBI
auth,orities. '[Paras 4 and 25] [1145,C;1153,A]
.: 1.2 S~ction 362 Cr.P.C. expressly provides that no
Court which has sig'ned its judgment and final order
D disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except
to correct clerical or arithmetical error save as otherwise 'x
provided by the Court. Such being the position and in ,.;..
view of the express prohibition in Cr.P.C. itself in the fo·rm
of Section 362, exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. c_annot be exercised to reopen or· alter an order
E
disposing of a· petition decided. on merits. Section 362 . I
Cr.P.C. cannot apply in the facts and circumstances· of r'
the present case. "There was no clerical or arithmetical
error in the order. [Paras 17, 21 and 24] [1150,H; 1151,A;
1151,H; 1152,A; 1152.E]
F -;..~
Sankatha Singh vs. State of UP 1962 Supp 2 SCR 817
- relied on.
1 ~3 Section 482 Cr.P.C. enables the High Court to
make such order as . may be necessary to give effect to
-
.

G any order under Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process ...__
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends o,f justice.
The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled
by principle and precedent as are its express powers by
statutes. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law,
H. the court cannot _give a go .. by to the statutory provisions
STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.1.0., CHENNAI v. 1143
K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS.

and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent A
·jurisdiction. [Para 18] [1151,B-C]
Hari Singh Mannn vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors.
2001 (1) SCC 169; Simlikha vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi
Mukherjee and Anr 1990 (2) SCC 437; Smt Sooraj Devi vs .
., ~, Pyare Lal and Anr AIR 1981 SC 736 - relied on. · ·· ·B
1.4 In the present case, the High Court, in the original
final order, disposing of the petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has specifically given reasons for rejecting the
prayer for handing over the investigation to the CBI c
autho.rities. That apart, after the final order was passed
rejecting the prayer of tlle respondent to hand over the
investigation to the CBI authorities, by which, the criminal
petition filed under Section 482 was practically rejected,
it was not open to the High Court to pass a fresh order in
0
the _disposed of petition or even in the pending petition of
the DSP (SB CID), directing investigation to be made by
the CBI authorities. [Para~ 22 and 23] [1152,B-C]
1.5 The respondents did not file any~ independent
application for transferring the investigation from the State .E
Police authorities to the CBI authorities on certain events
which had occurred after the final order was passed by
the High Court disposing of the earlier criminal petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C .. A prayer could be made by the
respondents before the High Court for transferring the F
investigation from.the State Police authorities to the CBI
by filing a fresh petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view
of subsequent events that had taken place after the final
order disposing of the earlier criminal petitron was passed.
[Para 25] [1152,E-G]
G
Case Law Reference·
20_01 (1) ~cc 169 Relied on. 15
. 1990 (~) sec 437 Relied on. 16
AIR 1981 SC 736 Reli'ed on. 19 H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 1962 Supp 2 SCR 817 Relied on. 20
CRIMINA~l\PPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1389 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.10.2004 of
B the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 3713 of
2001 in Crl. O.P. No. 19352of1998
M.S .. Ganesh, V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle .and S.
Prabu Ramasuramanian for the Appellant.

c Kamini Jaiswal for the Respondent. r
A. Sharan, ASG., Vikas Sharma, P. Parame~waran and T.
Raja for the CBI. -~' t
~
I
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~
0 TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. ..t
'x I-
~
2. The only question that needs·'tobe decided in this app-eal ~-
~
is whether in the exercise of the inherent powers under Section
482 bf the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, i§ the Code("), l
E an order disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to grant any
relief, could be modified and, thereafter, an investigation, which I
I
was with the State Police authorities could be transferred to the I-

Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, i§the CBI("). '
- 3. A criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code was
F filed by the respondents for transfer of the investigation which f. ~ ''
had been initiated for an offence under Sections 177, 186 and ~
506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code to the__GBI. In the year 1998,
the said criminal petition was disposed of by the High Court r
refusing to transfer the investigation to CBI. By the said order
G the High Court, while disposing of the said criminal petition, ,..___
held that it was not necessary to hand over the investigation to 'l-
CBI in the facts and circumstances of the case and the SBCID
was directed to continue with the investigation. After more t~an
F
3 ? years of the final order refusing to transfer the investigation
H · to ~Bl, an Interlocutory Application was filed in the disposed of
STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.1.0., CHENNAI v. 1145
KV RAJENDRAN & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~,~'

criminal petition by the complainant/respondents but this time, A
the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court transferred
the investigation to the CBI and directed the State Police to
hand over the records to CBI forthwith. It is this order, by which
the investigation was transferred to CBI, is in appeal before us,
which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of learned B
,. ~ counsel for the parties.
4. In our view, the High Court fell in error in reopening the
issue which was finally decided and refused earlier in the·
exercise of power under Sectio~ 482 of the Code on a petition
which was filed in a disposed of petition at the instance of the c
DSP [SB CID]. Before we take up this question for our decision,
it would be appropriate to narrate the facts of this case leading
to the filing of this appeal in a nutshell :-'
0

5. On 26th of August, 1998 the Revenue Divisional Officer D
-,( (in short 'the RDO') Mayiladuthurai received a .phone call
"""/ regarding smuggling of sandalwood and teak wood logs. The·
RDO immediately made enquiries and discovered that the call
was a false alarm. During the enquiry it also came to light that
the caller was one K.V Rajendran son of Vardarajan (the
Respondent herein). He had impersonated as a reporter of the
E
Indian Express and made a hoax call to the officer. On 27th of
August, 1998 at 01.00 hrs, the RDO appea·red before the
Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam and made a complaint
against the Respondent. He produced a statement given by
... ~ the Respondent wherein he had admitted the allegations made F
against him. The Respondent was identified as a Lecturer in
Government Presidency College, Madras. On the personal
complaint of the RDO, a case was registered in Porayiar police
J
Station against the Respondent under Sections 177, 186 and
..... 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent was arrested G
~
and in the morning of 27th of August 1998, he was produced
before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Mayiladuthurai and
remanded to judicial custody. On the next day, the.respondent
was granted bail and was released from custody. On 2nd of
~ September, 1998, the respondent herein alleged to have given H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

'y,,
A a complaint against- the RDO and other officers for having
tortured him and for having committed other illegal acts between
26th of August 1998 and 28th August, 1998.
6: On osth of September, 1998, the respondent filed a
petition before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil
B· Nadu. On this complaint, the District Collector, Nagapattinam,
)r .,
ordered an elaborate enquiry and on .the basis of such an order;
a report was submitted to him. On 05th of October, 1998, the
District Revenue Officer (ORO) and the Additional District
Magistrate submitted the report of their enquiry to the District
c· Collector. According to this report, the allegations leveled against·
the RDO and the other personnel by the respondent appeared
to be an afterthought and totally false. On oath of October, 1998,
the aforesaid report was forwarded to the State Human Rights
Commission, Tamil Nadu. The Commission accepted the report
and informed the respondent that the Commission was satisfied .
D
that no further enquiry should be conducted at -the level ·of the ~
Commission. The Commission did'not proceed with the matter ~
and following the view taken by them, a departmental enquiry
that was initiated, was also dropped.

E 7. In October 1998, the respondent filed the aforesaid
criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code in the Madras
High Court seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Direction to immediately register an FIR based on
the complaint filed on . 02nd of September, 1998;
F (b) Transfer further investigation to the Central Bureau
of Investigation;
"" ..
(c) Order payment of compensation of Rs on·e lakh.
8. As noted herein earlier, by a final order dated 1st of
G March, 2001, a learned Single Judge of .the High Court ·,.__ ~

disposed of the said criminal petition under Section 482 of the
Code refusing to transfer the investigation to CBI and also
directed that the question of granting compensation would arise
at a l;:iter stage. The said order was passed on the basis-of the
H findings arrived at by the !earned Judge, which are as follows:
/ '
STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.S. C.l.D., CHENNAI v. 1147
KV RAJENDRAN & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

"The third Respondent has already conducted A
confidential inquiry and submitted that report to
Superintendent of Police, SB CID stating that there are
enough prima facie materials to take action on the
complaint given by the Appellant against the sixth
Respondent and others. B
Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to
direct the third Respondent to register FIR for the various
offences mentioned in the complaint given by the
Appellant dated 2. 9. 1998 against Karunakaran, RDO
sixth Respondent and other officials and conduct C ·
investigation. Since the confidential report show that the
preliminary confidential enquiry has been conducted in
a properway by the third Respondent, it is unnecessary
to hand over the investigation to the CBI. Accordingly,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID, D
Nagapattinam District, the third Respondent is directed
to register an FIR, as noted above and take suitable
action against the persons concerned in accordan9e with '
the procedure contemplated under law, continue the
, investigation and file. a final report. E
Regarding the claim of interim compensation, the learned
counsel for the Appellant cited judgments in Bodhisatwa
Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996 (1) SCC 49)) and
D.K. Basu Vs. State of W B. (1995 (1) SCC 416).
F
In my view, the question of compensation can be
considered at a later stage. The more important is that
the RDO has taken law into his own hands and caused
serious prejudice to the personal liberty of the Appellant
has to be booked and investigation has to be conducted G
after registration of the FIR. Therefore, the question
regarding the entitlement of compensation and quantum
of the same can be considered by the appropriate forum
and at the appropriate stage.
With these observations, the petition is allowed. H

•.
(

1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A Consequently, no separate order is necessary in Cr/.
M. P No. 9037 of 1998."
, 9. A plain reading of the aforesaid order, refusing to hand
over the investigation to CBI, would show that the said order
was a final order rejectiMg the pr~yer of the appellant before the
B High Court. Subsequent to the disposing of the application,
that is to say, after 3? years, the DSR (SB CID) Chennai had
filed an applicc;ition in the aforesaid disposed of petition saying
that on the date of the aforesaid final order of the High Court
dated 1st of March, 2001, there was no post of DSP (SB CID)
C Nagapattinam, as the said post was abolished by a Government
order dated 17th of May, 2000. It was also brought to the notice
by the DSP (SB CID) N~gapattinam that in Rule 57 of the
Manual for Instructions for State Special Branch, the Special
Branch Officers were not empowered to conduct investigation
D of cases. Accordingly, an application was filed by him in the
disposed of criminal petition for modification of the final order
dated 1st of March, 2001 and fo[ a direction to the DSP (CB
CID) Nagapattinam instead oCDSP (SB CID) Nagapattinam
for investigation. This application filed by DSP (SBCID) was
E registered as Crl. M.P. 3713/2001.
10. During the pendency of this ·application filed by the
DSP [SB CID], an application was filed by the respondent
complaining that he and the witnesses were ill treated and
harassed by the Investigating Officer and the investigation was
F not conducted in an unbiased mariner and accordingly,
investigation must be transferred to CBI as prayed for by him
earlier.
11. The aforesaid application filed by DSP (SB CID)
G Nagapattinam, and the application filed by the complainant/
respondent in the disposed of criminal petition were heard by
the same learned Judge and this time, by the impugned order,
the learned Judge directed that it would be better to transfer the
investigation to CBI and, accordingly, the Investigating Officer
was directed to hand over the case diary and other r~cords
H
STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.8. C.l.D., CHENNAI v. 1149
K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

forthwith to the Director, CBI, New Delhi, who will hand over the A
same to a competent officer to make further investigation and
take appropriate acUon against the concerned and file the final
report within three months from the date of the receipt of the
order. By the aforesaid order, the original final order refusing to
hand over the investigation to CBI authorities dated 1st of March, . B
2001, was modified. It is this order now in appeal before us.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and examined the impugned order as well as the final order
dated 1st of March, 2001 rejecting the prayer of the respondents
to hand over the investigation to the CBI authorities and other C
materials on record.
13. In our view, the learned Judge of the Madras High
Court had fallen in error in passing the impugned order. The
following questions need to be considered by us :
D
(I} .. Wt.jther the High Court had become functus officio·
with the disposal .of the criminal petition by the
;
judgment and order dated 01st of March, 2001?
(II) Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent 1
power under Section 482 of the Code can modify its E
earlier judgment and order?
14. Before we take up the questions for our decision, we
may look into the law on the questions posed before ·US.
15. In the case of Hari Singh Mannn vs. Harbhajarl Singh F
Bajwa & others (2001) 1 SCC 169; this Court held:
'There is no provision in the Code Of Criminal Procedure ·
authorizing the High Court to review its judgment passed
either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original G
criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised
with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the
Code. Section 362 CrPC has extended the bar of review
not only to judgment but also to the final orders other
than the judgment. Section 362 is based OJ1 an H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A acknowledged principal of law that once a matter is finally
disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of
statutory provision becomes functus officio and is
disentitled tQ entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief
unless the former order is set aside by a court of
B competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law.
·The court becomes functus officio the moment the official
order disposing of a case is signed. Such an .order cannot
be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or \

. an arithmetical error."
C 16.Yet, in the case of Simrikha vs. bolley Mukherjee and
Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr, (1990) 2 SCC 437, this court held:
"The inherent power under Section 482 is intended to
prevent the abµse of the process of the Court and to
secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised
D
to qo something, which is expressly barred under the
Code. If any consideration of the facts by way of review
is not permissible under the Code and is expressly
barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power
.to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision.
E If there had been change in the circumstances of the
case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise
its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and
pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where
·F there is no such changed circumstances and the decision
has tO be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the
da(e of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to
reconsider the same materials to arrive at different
conclusion is in-effect a review, which is expressly barred
G under Section 362."
17. Keeping the principles, as laid down by the aforesaid ~
decisions of this Court in mind, let us now look to Section 362
of the Code, which expressly provides that no Court which has
H . signed its judgment and final order disposing of a case, shall
STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.S. C.l.D., CHENNAI v. 1151
K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

F·'f alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical A
error save as otherwise provided by the Court. At this stage,
the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code may be
looked into.
18. Section 482 enables the High Court to make such
order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the B
Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
~·-+
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers,
however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as
are its express powers by statutes. If a f!1atter is covered by an
express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the c
statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the ...
garb of inherent jurisdiction .
. 19. In the case of Smt Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal & Anr,
AIR 1981 SC 736, this Court held i§that the inherent power of
D
the Court cannot be exercised for doing thf)t which is
'f speCifical/y prohibited by the Code.(
20. Similar view was expressed in the case of Sankatha
Singh vs. State of UP [1962] Supp 2 SCR 817, in which it was
held: E
"It is true that the prohibition in Section 362 against the
Court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what
is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other Jaw
for the time being in force". Those words, however, refer
to those provisions only where the Court has been F
' . ~
expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or
review its judgment. The inherent power of the Court is
not contemplated by the saving provision contained in
Section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that
power can be of no avail." G
:' --f 21. As noted herein earlier, Section 362 of the Code
prohibits reopening of a final order except in the cases of clerical
or arithmetical errors. Such being the position and in view of
the express prohibition iri the Code itself in the form of Section
H

""""'
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A 362, exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code cannot
be exercised to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition
decided on merits.
22. In the present case, we find that the High Court, in the
original final order, disposing of the petition under Section 482
B of the Code has specifically given reasons for rejecting the
prayer for handing over the investigation to the CBI authorities.
23. That apart, after the final order was passed rejecting
the prayer of the respondent to hand over the investigation to
c the CBI authorities, by which, the criminal petition filed under
Section 482 was practically rejected, it was not open to the
High Court to pass a fresh order in the disposed of petition or
even in the pending petition of the DSP (SB CID) Nagapattinam,
- directing investigation to be made by the CBI authorities.
D 24. As noted herein earlier, Section 362 of the Code
prohibits a Court from making alternation in a judgment after
the final order or Judgment was signed by the Court disposing
of the case finally except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
In our view, therefore, SeCtion 362 of the Code cannot apply in
E the facts and circumstances of the present case. There was no
·clerical or arithmetical error in the order. {'

25. That apart, the respondents did not file any independent
application for transferring the investigation from the State Police
authorities to the CBI authorities on certain events which had
F occurred after the final order was passed by the High Court
disposing of the earlier criminal petition under Section 482 of
the Code. A prayer could be made by the respondents before
the ~igh Court for transferring the investigation from the State
Police authorities to the CBI by filing a fresh petition under
G Section 482 of the Code in view of subsequent events that had
taken place after the final order disposing of the earlier criminal
~- ',
petition was passed. Again, as noted herein earlier, the
respondents had never applied for transferring the investigation
from State Police authorities to .the CBI by making an
· H independent application. Accordingly, we do not think that the
>
)
STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.1.0., CHENNAI v. 1153
K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

High Court was justified in handing over the investigation of the A
case from the State Police authorities to the CBI authorities. It
is needless to mention that it would be open for the respondent
to make independent application under Section 482 of the
Code if they find that subsequent events having been taken
place, the investigation must be transferred from State Police B
authorities to CBI. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the
impugned order of the High Court in view of our discussions
made hereinabove. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
The appeal is thus allowed.
, 26. We make it clear once again that if a fresh criminal C
petition under Section 482 of the Code is filed by the
respondents for transferring the investigation from State Police
authorities to CBI after bringing certain subsequent events that
had taken place after the disposal of the original criminal petition
if there be any, it would be open for the High Court to entertain D
such application if it is warranted and decide the same in
accordance with law for which we express no opinion on merit.
27. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is thus allowed
to the extent indicated above.
E
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.