Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __ OF 2025 [ @ SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 3425 OF 2022 ] 2025 INSC 1020 reaffirmed a strict understanding of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”), which bars criminal courts from reviewing or altering their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes.¹ The Court’s holding clarified the doctrinal boundaries between “procedural” and “substantive” review, while emphasizing the importance of finality in criminal proceedings.
This decision, arising out of protracted litigation between two business groups over corporate control and allegations of perjury, carries implications both for criminal procedural law and corporate governance disputes that spill into criminal process.
Footnotes – Introduction
- Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr., 2025 INSC 1020 (India).
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute traces back to a 2005 Memorandum of Understanding between the Khosla and Bakshi groups regarding development of a resort in Himachal Pradesh.² A special purpose vehicle, Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (MRPL), was formed, with the Bakshi group acquiring majority control.³ Allegations of oppression and mismanagement led Sonia Khosla to file Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 before the Company Law Board (CLB).⁴
Parallel proceedings soon emerged. The Khosla group alleged that minutes of an Annual General Meeting of 30 September 2006, submitted by the Bakshi group, were forged.⁵ This gave rise to applications under § 340 CrPC for prosecution of perjury. The High Court of Delhi initially disposed of these applications in 2020, noting that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT, successor to the CLB) was already seized of related issues.⁶ However, in 2021 the High Court recalled its earlier judgment, reasoning that the company petition had since been withdrawn, and ordered a rehearing.⁷
It was this recall order that the Bakshi group challenged before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court lacked authority to review its earlier judgment.
Footnotes – Background
2. Id. at 2–3.
3. Id. at 4–5.
4. Id. at 6–7.
5. Id. at 13–14.
6. Id. at 10–11.
7. Id. at 12–13.
Legal Framework
Section 362 CrPC provides:
“No court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”⁸
This provision establishes a categorical bar on review of criminal judgments. Courts have consistently held that, unlike civil courts under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), criminal courts are functus officio once they pronounce judgment.⁹
The only limited exception is the notion of “procedural review.” In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Supreme Court distinguished between “substantive review,” which is impermissible unless statutorily provided, and “procedural review,” which allows correction of orders passed under a misapprehension or in violation of natural justice.¹⁰
Footnotes – Legal Framework
8. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 362 (India).
9. State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752; Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169.
10. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Cent. Gov’t Indus. Tribunal, 1980 Supp. SCC 420.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
In Bakshi, the Court held that the Delhi High Court’s recall order of May 2021 amounted to an impermissible review.¹¹ The High Court had relied on the withdrawal of Company Petition 114 of 2007, but this fact was available at the time of the earlier 2020 judgment. Suppression of such information could not justify recall under the guise of “procedural review.”¹²
The Court emphasized three points. First, proceedings under § 340 CrPC are criminal in nature, since they may culminate in prosecution for offences such as perjury.¹³ Second, once the High Court disposed of the petition in 2020, it became functus officio; CPC provisions could not be invoked to reopen the matter.¹⁴ Finally, the exceptions to § 362—such as fraud on the court or lack of jurisdiction—were not satisfied, since the Khosla group had simply failed to disclose material facts.¹⁵
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the recall order and restored the finality of the 2020 judgment.¹⁶
Footnotes – Reasoning
11. Bakshi, 2025 INSC 1020, at 24–25.
12. Id. at 26–27.
13. Id. at 22–23.
14. Id. at 21–22.
15. Id. at 20–21.
16. Id. at 27.
Comparative Jurisprudence
The Court’s reasoning aligns with prior precedent. In Manikantan Nair, the Court held that § 362 imposes a complete prohibition on reviewing criminal judgments.¹⁷ In Hari Singh Mann, it reiterated that courts become functus officio once judgment is pronounced.¹⁸ Similarly, Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor underscored that even inherent powers under § 482 CrPC cannot override § 362.¹⁹
At the same time, cases such as Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb allowed limited recall where orders were obtained by fraud or passed without jurisdiction.²⁰ The Bakshi Court recognized these exceptions but found them inapplicable to mere suppression of facts that could have been raised earlier.
Footnotes – Comparative Jurisprudence
17. Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752.
18. Hari Singh Mann, (2001) 1 SCC 169.
19. Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC 172.
20. Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396.
Implications
The Bakshi ruling strengthens finality in criminal proceedings, particularly in the gray area of perjury prosecutions under § 340 CrPC. By refusing to allow strategic recall applications, the Court has reduced opportunities for litigants to prolong disputes through procedural maneuvers.
In corporate disputes where allegations of falsified records often lead to perjury claims, this judgment ensures that once a criminal court disposes of such an application, parties cannot reopen proceedings under civil procedural provisions. It reaffirms that criminal procedure is a self-contained code, immune from cross-pollination with civil review mechanisms.
Conclusion
Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla clarifies and narrows the scope of review in criminal proceedings. By holding that § 362 CrPC bars recall of judgments except for clerical errors or narrowly defined procedural defects, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal litigation must reach finality.