In a sharp judicial intervention, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 8, 2025) set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order that had transferred a granite mining-related investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The apex court found that the High Court “overstepped its jurisdiction” by recalling its earlier order and virtually reviewing it under the guise of correcting a clerical mistake.
Background
The case originated from a series of complaints filed by businessman Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, who runs granite mining operations in Bhilwara district, Rajasthan. Joshi accused former Revenue Minister Ramlal Jat and others of threats, extortion, and theft of mining equipment. He alleged that despite multiple complaints, the local police failed to act impartially due to political influence.
After an initial “negative report” by the Bhilwara police, Joshi filed further applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, leading to two new FIRs. Dissatisfied again, he approached the Rajasthan High Court, seeking to transfer the probe to the CBI.
Initially, the High Court only allowed Joshi to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police, directing a “fair and impartial investigation.” However, days later, it recalled its own order, citing an “inadvertent clerical mistake,” and eventually directed the transfer of the probe to the CBI - a move the State of Rajasthan challenged before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta came down heavily on the High Court’s approach. The bench observed, “There was neither any clerical mistake nor inadvertent error in the High Court’s earlier order. What was done later amounted to a review, which the High Court cannot do under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC).”
The judges reminded that criminal courts are prohibited from reviewing or recalling their own judgments, except for correcting typographical or clerical errors. The bench cited the precedent of Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee (1990) to reinforce that inherent powers cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on review.
The court also pointed out that Joshi had earlier withdrawn a similar writ petition seeking the same relief. “Once a writ petition with identical prayers is withdrawn without liberty to refile, another petition seeking the same relief under a different label cannot be entertained,” the bench noted.
Decision
Holding that the High Court’s orders dated January 24, 2025, and February 4, 2025, were “grossly illegal and without jurisdiction,” the Supreme Court quashed them in entirety.
However, the bench acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and granted the complainant liberty to pursue lawful remedies - including challenging the earlier High Court orders - if he so desired.
The appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were accordingly allowed, while the connected special leave petitions were disposed of as infructuous.
With this, the apex court reaffirmed a fundamental legal principle: no court can review its own criminal orders in the absence of explicit statutory authority - a reminder that procedural discipline is as essential to justice as substance itself.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi & Others
Judgment Date: October 8, 2025