#finality of judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot invoke its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to set aside a conviction that has already attained finality before the apex court, even if the accused later proves he was a juvenile under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act. This narrows the scope of Section 482, preserving the finality of appellate judgments and limiting relief avenues for convicted persons claiming subsequent juvenility.

Karnataka High Court dismisses a petition seeking to quash an NI Act conviction, ruling that repeated challenges to final orders after Supreme Court dismissal constitute abuse of judicial process. The judgment reinforces that litigants cannot reopen concluded matters under Section 482 CrPC, protecting judicial finality and preventing frivolous re-litigation.

The Supreme Court ruled that an oral dictation in open court lacks legal force until formally signed and authenticated, setting aside a disputed order uploaded post-dictation. This decision underscores the procedural requirement for signed judgments to prevent ambiguity in judicial pronouncements, impacting litigants and lower courts interpreting interim rulings.

Allahabad HC dismisses a review petition attempting to reargue a dismissed writ, holding that review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not a substitute for appeal. The court reiterated the Supreme Court’s Parsion Devi ruling that errors requiring reasoning cannot be grounds for review, reinforcing finality of judgments and preventing abuse of process.

Supreme Court reaffirms that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is non-justiciable, and a dismissed Special Leave Petition cannot be recalled based on subsequent settlements. The Court held that only clerical errors or executory impossibility can warrant reconsideration, setting a high bar for reopening dismissed appeals.

The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not a platform to reargue factual disputes or challenge evidentiary appreciation already settled in a final judgment. The ruling underscores that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not rehearing merits.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that once a civil suit concludes with a final judgment, Section 195(1)(b) CrPC cannot be invoked to launch criminal proceedings for false testimony given in that suit. This reinforces the principle that civil disputes must be resolved within the civil framework and prevents criminal law from being weaponized to relitigate settled civil matters.