#final order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Section 362 CrPC creates an absolute statutory bar against reviewing final criminal orders, even when natural justice is violated. Inherent powers under Section 482 cannot override this prohibition, reinforcing that procedural fairness cannot justify circumventing the Code’s finality rule - a critical limit for complainants and prosecutors seeking to reopen closed cases.

HP High Court upheld a ₹5 lakh cost on the State for failing to implement a 2016 tribunal order directing retrospective service regularization from 2002 instead of 2006. The court emphasized that final judicial orders cannot be ignored for administrative convenience, setting a precedent for strict enforcement of tribunal directives.

NCDRC reaffirms that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are strictly limited to enforcing the exact terms of a final decree. Builders or judgment debtors cannot be compelled to fulfill obligations beyond what was originally ordered, protecting them from post-judgment claims not adjudicated in the main case.