Inherent criminal powers cannot be used to review a final order when a second application raises the same facts and grounds.

Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to secure a de facto review of a final order when the same facts and materials are placed again before the court. Section 362 bars alteration or review of a final order except for clerical or arithmetical correction, so a fresh application raising no changed circumstances is not maintainable. On the record, the earlier finding that cognizance had already been taken before transfer of the case could not be reopened through a second section 482 application. The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings by effectively reviewing its earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain a second application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the same facts and, in effect, review its earlier order by quashing the proceedings.

Analysis: The inherent power under section 482 is meant to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but it cannot be used to do what the Code expressly forbids. Section 362 bars alteration or review of a final order, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Where there is no change in circumstances, a reconsideration of the same materials to reach a different conclusion amounts in substance to a review. Since the earlier finding that cognizance had been taken before transfer of the case had already been recorded on the record, the matter could not be reagitated through a fresh application under section 482.

Conclusion: The second application under section 482 was not maintainable on the same grounds, and the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings by effectively reviewing its earlier order.

---