Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the Madras High Court’s order which had allowed a second quashing petition filed by the accused in a criminal complaint alleging property fraud. The Apex Court held that “the impugned order passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of the record and cannot be affirmed.” It restored Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 to the file of the IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby reviving the proceedings initiated by the complainant.
The Court categorically held that entertaining a second quashing petition on grounds available during the first petition amounts to a “review (plain and simple)” which is barred under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Facts
The complainant, engaged in travel and finance business, had taken loans from the accused between 2005–2008. To secure the loans, he deposited original property deeds from his properties in Thanjavur and Chennai. After clearing the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs. 1.65 crore, he sought the return of those documents. When the accused did not return the deeds, he issued a legal notice dated 30 August 2011.
Instead of returning the documents, one of the accused allegedly executed a fraudulent sale deed of the Thanjavur property. Upon discovering the fraud, the complainant lodged a complaint in 2011, which was closed by police and subsequently accepted by the Magistrate in 2013. His revision and SLP were also dismissed, albeit with liberty to seek alternate remedies.
The complainant then filed another criminal complaint in 2015 regarding the same fraudulent sale deed, which was quashed by the High Court in 2020.
Meanwhile, in 2018, a civil suit was filed by a third party who produced the original documents of another property (which the complainant claimed to have handed over to the accused). This prompted the complainant to file a fresh complaint in 2019 alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The High Court rejected a first quashing petition filed by the accused in December 2021. However, a second quashing petition filed in 2022 was allowed, quashing the criminal complaint — which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable on grounds that were already available at the time of the first petition?
- Whether the High Court committed an error in effectively reviewing its earlier order under the guise of entertaining a fresh petition?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the second quashing petition was a clear attempt to review the earlier order of the coordinate bench, which had already rejected similar grounds. He emphasized that there was no change in circumstances or emergence of any new facts justifying a second quashing. The second petition merely attempted to raise the same pleas previously rejected, which was impermissible under Section 362 CrPC. The petitioner maintained that the High Court’s impugned order violated the bar on review of its own decisions under the guise of exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents contended that the second quashing petition was based on new grounds, namely the prior quashing of a similar complaint involving the Thanjavur property. They argued that this development constituted a significant change in circumstances and demonstrated that the complainant was misusing criminal proceedings to harass them. It was also argued that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers, was within its jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process, and the bar under Section 362 CrPC did not apply in such instances.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined whether successive quashing petitions could be entertained on pre-existing grounds. It clarified that while there is no absolute bar on a second petition, such petitions must be based on genuinely new developments. The burden lies on the petitioner to show that circumstances have changed after the disposal of the earlier petition.
Importantly, the Court noted that Section 362 CrPC bars review of its own final order by any criminal court, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. Since the respondents’ grounds in the second petition were clearly available during the first petition, the Court held that allowing the second petition amounted to a “plain and simple” review.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied significantly on Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399, where it was held:
“It is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance.”
The Court also referred to Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437, where it held:
“The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Section 362 CrPC… The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.”
These judgments collectively reinforced the principle that inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent the express bar on review under Section 362.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the respondents’ second quashing petition raised no new grounds. The prior quashing of the Thanjavur complaint occurred before the dismissal of the first quashing petition. The respondents could have, but failed to, raise that point earlier. Hence, the second petition was an impermissible attempt to seek review, barred under Section 362 CrPC.
The Court emphasized that if such successive petitions are allowed, it would permit “ingenious accused” to indefinitely stall criminal proceedings by filing piecemeal challenges.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court’s order dated 13 September 2022, which had wrongly quashed the criminal complaint. Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 stands restored before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The Court clarified that the accused may raise all permissible defences at the appropriate stage.
Implications
This judgment sets a critical precedent in affirming that successive quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to seek review on the same or pre-existing grounds. It draws a strict line between permissible judicial discretion and impermissible judicial review cloaked as inherent power. It reinforces finality in judicial orders, prevents abuse of process, and upholds the integrity of procedural law.
Referred Cases and Their Role
- Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP & Anr.
Reaffirmed that successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC on pre-existing grounds are not maintainable. - Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Anr.
Held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override the bar on review under Section 362 CrPC.
FAQs
Q1. Can an accused file a second petition under Section 482 CrPC after a prior petition is dismissed?
A second petition may be filed only if there is a genuine change in circumstances. If the grounds were available at the time of the first petition, a second petition would amount to a barred review.
Q2. Does Section 362 CrPC prohibit the High Court from revisiting its earlier decisions under Section 482 CrPC?
Yes. Section 362 CrPC prohibits review of final judgments except for clerical or arithmetical errors. Inherent powers under Section 482 cannot override this bar.
Q3. What was the Supreme Court’s final directive in this case?
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s second quashing order and restored the criminal complaint, allowing trial proceedings to continue.