Case: Vikram Bakshi and Ors. v. R.P. Khosla and Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 20 August 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India BR Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Summary

The Supreme Court has clarified that criminal courts cannot review or recall their judgments, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, or in very limited exceptional circumstances. The ruling sets aside a Delhi High Court order that had recalled its earlier dismissal of perjury proceedings in a corporate dispute involving the Bakshi and Khosla groups.

Background

The dispute arose from a corporate arrangement in 2005–2006 to develop a resort at Kasauli through Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Allegations of oppression, mismanagement, and forgery of AGM minutes were raised by the Khosla Group. Multiple proceedings followed, including petitions for perjury under Section 340 CrPC.

In 2014, the Supreme Court directed the Company Law Board (now NCLT) to decide both the company petition and perjury application, restraining the High Court from proceeding further. Despite this, applications were later filed in the High Court, which dismissed them in 2020. The High Court later recalled its own judgment in 2021 on grounds of “procedural review,” prompting the appeal.

Key Issues

• Alleged forgery of AGM minutes filed by the Bakshi Group.
• Filing of false affidavits in related contempt proceedings.
• Misrepresentation of the pendency of company petitions to justify perjury applications.

Supreme Court Findings

• Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and governed exclusively by CrPC. Civil review provisions do not apply.
• Once a judgment is signed, criminal courts become functus officio, barred from altering or reviewing judgments except in explicit statutory circumstances.
• The High Court’s recall order amounted to a substantive review, which is impermissible under Section 362 CrPC.
• The fact that the company petition had already been withdrawn could not justify recall since it was available at the time of the original hearing.

Cited Precedents

• Section 362 CrPC jurisprudence: Courts cannot alter judgments once signed.
• Exceptions recognized:
  a. Explicit statutory power,
  b. Lack of jurisdiction,
  c. Fraud or collusion,
  d. Mistake by court causing prejudice,
  e. Non-serving or death of a necessary party.
• The Court found that none of these applied in the present case.

Important Observations

• “As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this despite Section 482 CrPC powers which cannot be used to circumvent an explicit bar.”
• “Such acts to undermine the finality of judicial proceedings cannot be permitted, especially in situations of deliberate omissions or misrepresentation.”

Legal Partners’ Views

This judgment underscores the importance of finality in criminal proceedings. Allowing reviews beyond narrow exceptions would create legal uncertainty and open doors to endless litigation. The Court has rightly reinforced that procedural safeguards cannot be used to re-litigate issues or mask deliberate misrepresentations.

Outcome

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s May 5, 2021 recall order and restored its August 13, 2020 dismissal of the perjury petition.

Final Thoughts

This ruling will be crucial in reaffirming the limited scope of Section 362 CrPC and ensuring that criminal judgments achieve finality. It sends a clear message that litigants cannot exploit procedural review to reopen settled matters, thereby preserving judicial integrity and certainty in criminal adjudication.

SOURCE: LiveLaw