Background:

The present case arose from a criminal complaint by M.C. Ravikumar against D.S. Velmurugan and others for cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. Ravikumar had handed over property documents as loan security between 2005 and 2008, which were allegedly misused by the accused to create sham sale deeds. His initial complaint was challenged under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) before the Madras High Court, which dismissed the quashing petition. However, a second petition before a different bench was allowed, quashing the complaint. Ravikumar appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the second petition was not maintainable. The Court agreed, restored the complaint, and held that successive quashing petitions on the same grounds are barred unless backed by new facts or changed circumstances.

Issues

1. Whether the accused can maintain a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) based on grounds that existed earlier but were not urged in the first petition, which was dismissed?

2. Whether a co-equal bench of the High Court can effectively overrule or review an earlier bench’s final judgment by entertaining a second Section 482 (now Section 528 BNSS) petition?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court emphasized that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) is not permissible if it is based on grounds already available at the time of the first petition.
• • The second petition amounted to a review in disguise, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC (now section 403 BNSS).
• • Criminal courts cannot alter or review their final orders, except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors.
• • Filing multiple petitions on the same cause is an abuse of process and undermines finality in judicial proceedings.
• • The co-equal bench of the High Court had no jurisdiction to override or re-decide the issue already settled by another bench.
• • The complaint disclosed serious allegations (cheating, forgery, misappropriation). These issues deserved to be tested in trial, not quashed at the preliminary stage.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Madras High Court, which had quashed a criminal complaint through a second petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). The court held that:

• • The High Court erred in entertaining the second quashing petition, as the grounds raised therein were already available at the time of the first petition, which had been dismissed.
• • The Court observed that permitting such successive petitions amounted to an abuse of the judicial process and constituted an indirect review of a final order, which is expressly barred under Section 362 CrPC (now Section 403 BNSS).
• • The Court restored the original criminal complaint filed by the appellant, directing that proceedings should continue in accordance with law.

Therefore, the judgment reinforced that Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot be invoked multiple times on the same cause of action without new or changed circumstances.

Why this case matters:

This case matters because it clarifies and reinforces important legal principles governing the scope and limits of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), especially regarding the filing of successive quashing petitions.

• • It bars accused persons from repeatedly filing quashing petitions on the same grounds, which helps avoid delays, harassment of complainants, and misuse of court time.
• • Upholds the finality of High Court orders under Section 362 CrPC (now Section 403 BNSS), prohibiting indirect review.
• • Ensures serious allegations get proper trial instead of being quashed prematurely.
• • Promotes judicial economy by avoiding fragmented and repetitive litigation.
• • Provides clear guidance on the limits and maintainability of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS).

Laws related thereto:

Under BNSS:

• Section 528: Inherent Powers of the High Court.

Allows the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

• Section 403: Court Not to Alter or Review Judgments.

Prohibits criminal courts (including High Courts) from reviewing or modifying final orders, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

Judicial Precedents:

• Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee (1990): Second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable on the same grounds; it amounts to a review, which is barred.

• Asgar v. Mohan Varma (2022): Successive 482 petitions are not permissible unless there is a change in circumstances or new grounds.

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): Laid down conditions where quashing under Section 482 is justified; must be used sparingly and cautiously.