Summary
The Supreme Court refused interference with dismissal of a second Section 482 petition raising challenges already available when the first petition was filed. The charge sheet and cognizance order predated the first application, which attacked only prosecution sanction. Although successive petitions are not universally barred and changed circumstances may justify a fresh application, withholding available pleas for serial challenges would abuse the process.
Issues
- Whether a second quashing petition could raise grounds available when the first was filed.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent jurisdiction could not be repeatedly invoked through instalment challenges based on facts and grounds already available at the first invocation. Changed circumstances remained a distinct situation. (¶ 8–12)
Held
- There is no blanket prohibition against a second Section 482 petition. Maintainability depends on the facts, including whether circumstances have genuinely changed or a new basis has arisen. (¶ 8–11)
- A litigant aware of all relevant facts must raise the available pleas together rather than reserve them for successive applications designed to stall proceedings. Such serial invocation is an abuse of process. (¶ 10–11)
- Both the charge sheet and cognizance preceded the first petition challenging sanction. The later challenge to those existing steps supplied no permissible fresh basis for invoking Section 482 again. (¶¶ 6–7, 12)
- The liberty earlier granted to challenge sanction before the trial court did not justify the separate second High Court challenge to the already-existing charge sheet and cognizance order. (¶¶ 6, 12)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; High Court’s refusal to entertain the second Section 482 application left undisturbed. No merits determination of the criminal charges made.