Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

XXX versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Decided
22 November 2021
Judges listed
VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1115 · 2021 INSC 770
Also cited as
  • 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1323 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 1115, margin G

An FIR was lodged by the respondent, which was challenged by the appellant by way of a petition filed before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By a judgment and order dated 20.04.2021, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. Thereafter on 28.04.2021, the High Court took up the matter suo moto and recalled the order dated 20.04.2021. Challenging the same, this appeal by way of special leave petition has been filed.

pp. 1115–1116, margin G

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

p. 1116, margin B

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. the Court does not have the power to alter the judgment and order once passed, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. In the present case, by a judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 FIR had been quashed by the High Court by a detailed reasoned order, which has been recalled by the impugned order dated 28.04.2021. There is no power, except under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. The same does not empower the court to recall the earlier order passed after contest and that too suo moto.

p. 1116, margin B

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 could not have been passed and the earlier order dated 20.04.2021 has wrongly been recalled by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.04.2021 is set aside.

p. 1116, margin D