In a significant ruling on judicial review powers, the Supreme Court of India has allowed the State of Rajasthan’s appeal, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s orders that transferred the investigation of two FIRs related to alleged extortion and illegal mining in Bhilwara district to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The apex court, in its judgment dated October 8, 2025, held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling a previous dismissal order under inherent powers, violating the bar under Section 362 of the CrPC (now Section 405 BNSS). While quashing the transfer, the court granted liberty to the complainant to challenge the earlier dismissal orders through appropriate remedies, acknowledging the gravity of the allegations involving police and mining officials.
The case revolves around Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman from Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Joshi, promoter and director of M/s Black Mount Granite Private Limited and holder of mining lease No. 67/12 in village Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kareda, alleged a conspiracy by accused persons—including local police, mining department officials, and private individuals—to extort money, illegally mine granite, and threaten him. He claimed the accused demanded ₹1.50 crore, forcibly extracted granite worth ₹2 crore, and manipulated records to show illegal mining by his firm.
Joshi initially filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to FIR No. 211/2023 at PS Kareda for offenses under IPC Sections 406, 420, 384, 379, and 120-B. Dissatisfied with the police investigation, he filed a protest petition. Subsequently, cross-FIRs were registered: FIR No. 202/2024 against Joshi for illegal mining under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and FIR No. 234/2024 by Joshi against the accused for extortion and theft.
Suspecting bias in the local police probe, Joshi filed S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2244/2024 seeking CBI transfer, which was dismissed on October 23, 2024, directing him to approach the Magistrate. He then submitted a representation to the DGP, but later filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 287/2025 under Section 482 CrPC for the same relief. This was dismissed as withdrawn on January 16, 2025. Joshi sought recall via S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 60/2025, claiming clerical error, which the High Court allowed on January 24, 2025. On February 4, 2025, it restored and allowed the petition, transferring the probe to CBI, citing unsatisfactory police investigation.
The State appealed, arguing the High Court improperly reviewed its order, barred by CrPC Section 362. The Supreme Court agreed, referencing precedents like Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee (1990) and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011), emphasizing that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot override the review bar or reconsider the same materials. The court found no clerical error in the January 16 order and deemed the recall an impermissible review.
However, noting serious allegations of police involvement and potential miscarriage of justice, the bench permitted Joshi to assail the dismissal orders dated October 23, 2024, and January 16, 2025, via suitable legal avenues.
This verdict reinforces limits on High Courts’ inherent powers, preventing forum shopping through successive petitions, while ensuring avenues for redress in grave cases. It may impact similar transfers sought amid claims of local bias.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others (and connected matters)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1205
- Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
- Appeal Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. __ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2797-2798 of 2025); connected SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 3308-3309/2025 and 3310-3311/2025
- Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date of Judgment: October 8, 2025
- Key Issue: Validity of High Court’s recall of dismissal order and transfer of investigation to CBI under inherent powers.
- Outcome: Appeals allowed; High Court orders quashed; liberty granted to complainant to challenge earlier dismissals.
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 