Browsing: criminal procedure

The Supreme Court held that criminal courts cannot review or recall their own final, signed orders except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s recall and transfer of two FIR investigations to the CBI. It ruled that inherent powers under Section 482 (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot override the bar in Section 362 CrPC (now Section 403 BNSS). The Court restored finality to the earlier order and allowed parties to seek appropriate remedies.

The Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, ruled that nationwide consolidation of First Information Reports (FIRs) involving different witnesses, evidence, and local laws is impermissible. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to club multiple FIRs registered against Odela Satyam and others across various states in a multi-crore financial scam. The Court clarified that clubbing of FIRs is only permissible when multiple FIRs arise from the same incident or transaction. The judgment distinguished the case from Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), where FIRs were consolidated for a single televised statement. While rejecting pan-India consolidation, the Court permitted state-wise clubbing of FIRs where multiple cases existed within the same state. The Court emphasized that trials involving investor-witnesses from various locations would make nationwide clubbing impractical and rejected prayers seeking consolidation of future FIRs as “overambitious and outright illegal”.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Karnataka’s plea challenging a High Court ruling that applied the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) judgment retrospectively. In Pankaj Bansal, the Court held that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused at the time of arrest. Karnataka argues this rule applies prospectively, not to arrests before October 3, 2023. The State also cited Ram Kishor Arora v. ED (2024), where the Court held non-furnishing of grounds before Pankaj Bansal was not illegal. The case, listed for July 18, 2025, will clarify whether such safeguards apply retrospectively.