Summary
The High Court dismissed a first petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a criminal complaint and, six months later, allowed a second petition by the same accused on grounds that were available when the first was decided. The Supreme Court held that a second quashing petition is not maintainable on pre-existing grounds, that the second order was in substance a review barred by Section 362 CrPC, and restored the complaint.
Issues
- Whether a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable on grounds or pleas that were available to be raised at the time of filing or decision of the first quashing petition.
Provisions considered
- Section 482 (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, 2023), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973There is no sweeping rule that a second petition under Section 482 is not maintainable, but an accused cannot raise one plea after another by repeatedly invoking the inherent jurisdiction when all such pleas were available at the first instance; the onus to show a change in circumstances lies on the person filing the subsequent petition. The inherent power cannot be used to override the bar on review in Section 362. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 16)
- Section 362 (corresponding to Section 403 BNSS, 2023), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A court which has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case cannot alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The order allowing the second quashing petition, with no change in circumstances, was a review of the coordinate bench's earlier order in disregard of this bar. (¶¶ 6, 14, 15)
Held
- There is no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC will not lie; maintainability depends on the facts of each case. But it is not open to an accused to raise one plea after another by repeatedly invoking the inherent jurisdiction when all such pleas were available at the first instance, and the onus to show a change in circumstances warranting a subsequent petition lies on the person filing it. (¶ 13)
- The failure of the accused to raise a ground tangibly available at the time of adjudication of the first quashing petition cannot confer a right to file a subsequent quashing petition, as that would amount to seeking review on pre-existing material. (¶ 12)
- Where there was admittedly no change in circumstances and no new ground became available after dismissal of the first petition, the order allowing the second petition amounted to a review, plain and simple, of the coordinate bench's order, which Section 362 CrPC expressly bars except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The High Court cannot, under Section 482, review its own decision or do what the Code specifically prohibits. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The quashing of a similar complaint (Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015) on 09.03.2020 occurred well before the first quashing petition was dismissed, so that ground was manifestly available then and could not be raised through a second petition. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order dated 13.09.2022 in Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022 quashed and set aside; Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 restored to the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai; all defences of the accused left open to be raised before the appropriate forum; pending applications disposed of.