Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 888
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022)
M.C. RAVIKUMAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
D.S. VELMURUGAN
& ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal has been filed against final
th 1
judgment and order dated 13 September, 2022
2
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
3
in quashing petition filed by the respondents
4
herein . Vide the impugned order, the High Court
allowed the quashing petition and quashed the
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned order”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
3
Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “accused-respondents”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.23
18:38:19 IST
Reason:
1
5 6
criminal complaint filed by the appellant herein
against the accused-respondents for the offences
punishable under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423,
468, 469 read with 34 and 120 of Indian Penal Code,
7
1860 before the learned IX Metropolitan Judicial
Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
Factual Background: -
4.
Facts in nutshell, relevant and essential for
disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4.1. The complainant has been engaged in travels
and finance business for several years. During 2005-
2008, the complainant entered into some loan
transactions with the accused-respondents who were
engaged in the business of money lending. To secure
the said loan transactions, the complainant gave the
original deeds of several of his properties situated at
Thanjavur and Chennai to the accused-respondents.
An agreement of sale came to be executed between C.
Natrajan (respondent No. 2) and the complainant in
5
Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.
6
Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant” or “appellant-complainant.
7
For short “IPC”.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
8 9
respect of a flat and a portion of plot situated at
th
Adyar, Chennai on 25 April, 2008.
rd
4.2. Thereafter, on 23 May, 2008, a tripartite
agreement came to be executed between the
complainant, one R.R. Vasudevan and D.S.
Velmurugan (respondent no. 1). Under the said
agreement, R.R. Vasudevan paid Rs. 79,00,000/- to
respondent No. 1, which was actually payable to the
complainant. Thereafter, the complainant cleared of
the remaining outstanding amount pertaining to the
loan transactions totaling Rs. 1,65,98,000/- and
having made such payment, he requested the
accused-respondents to return the original deeds
given as security against the loan amount. Since the
accused-respondents failed to respond to the
aforesaid request, the complainant was constrained
th
to issue legal notice dated 30 August, 2011 to them,
seeking return of the original documents.
4.3. It is alleged that after the receipt of the aforesaid
notice, respondent No. 1 executed a sham sale deed
8 nd
Flat No. 10 having plinth area of 935 sq. ft., First Floor, 2 Main Road,
Rams Flat, Adyar, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai.
9
3/87 undivided share of land measuring larger extent of 4 Grounds and
895 sq. ft. under Survey No. 42 Part, Block No. 36, Kottur Village, Plot No.
nd
126 Part, situated at Old Door No. 83, 2 Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai.
3
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
in respect of the complainant’s property situated at
Thanjavur, which was given as security against the
loan amount. On coming to know of the said
fraudulent transaction, the complainant filed a
nd
complaint on 22 November, 2011 with the Crime
Branch, Chennai after procuring orders of the High
Court. The said complaint came to be registered as
Crime No. 193 of 2012. The police filed closure report
in the said case and the same was accepted by Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide order
rd 10
dated 23 September, 2013. The revision petition
filed by the complainant was dismissed by the High
th
Court vide order dated 24 October, 2013 and the
11
special leave petition against the said order of the
High Court was dismissed by this Court vide order
th
dated 7 January, 2015, with an observation that in
the event, the complainant chose to pursue
appropriate remedies, the observations of the High
Court may not prejudice the same. In pursuance of
the said order of this Court, the complainant filed yet
another Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 before
Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thanjavur against
10
Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 1305 of 2013.
11
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1042 of 2014.
4
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
respondent No. 1 and the co-accused persons.
12
However, the quashing petition filed by respondent
No. 1 and other co-accused persons seeking
quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 was
th
allowed by the High Court vide order dated 9 March,
2020.
13
4.4. In the meantime, one P. Jothikumar filed Civil
Suit No. 79 of 2018 before the High Court seeking a
money decree to the tune of Rs. 1,24,62,000/- in
respect of the amount allegedly loaned by him to the
complainant. The said suit was filed by exhibiting the
original documents of the flat, which as per the
complainant were actually handed over to the
accused-respondents as security.
4.5. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred
Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 before the IX
Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
against the accused-respondents and P. Jothikumar
(accused No. 4) for the offences punishable under
Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with
34 and 120 of IPC. In the said complaint, summons
12
Criminal Original Petition (MD) Nos. 13228 of 2015 and 19634 of 2016.
13
Accused No. 4 in Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.
5
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
came to be issued against all the accused persons
th
vide order dated 27 April, 2019.
4.6. The accused-respondents filed the first
14
quashing petition before the High Court seeking the
quashing of the aforesaid complaint. The said
petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide
nd
speaking order dated 22 December, 2021. The
accused-respondents after waiting for 6 months
15
preferred a second quashing petition before the
High Court seeking the quashing of the very same
complaint i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.
4.7. The High Court vide final judgment and order
th
dated 13 September, 2022 allowed the second
quashing petition and quashed entire proceedings of
Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 filed by the
appellant-complainant. The said order of High Court
is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by
special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant-
complainant: -
5.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-complainant, vehemently and fervently
14
Criminal Original Petition No. 14186 of 2019.
15
Supra Note 3.
6
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
argued that the High Court fell in grave error while
allowing the second quashing petition filed by the
accused-respondents which was based on the very
same grounds/pleas which were taken in the first
quashing petition. He urged that there was no change
in circumstances and there existed no new ground
for entertaining the second quashing petition.
6. Learned counsel urged that the impugned order
tantamounts to review of the previous order passed
by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court which is
impermissible in view of the bar prescribed under
16
Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Corresponding to Section 403 of Bhartiya Nagarik
17
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ). He contended that the
High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC (Corresponding to Section
528 BNSS) cannot be allowed to review an earlier
order as the same is expressly barred by Section 362
CrPC.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-complainant implored this
16
For short “CrPC”.
17
For short “BNSS”.
7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
Court to accept the appeal and set aside the
impugned order passed by the High Court.
Submissions on behalf of the accused-
respondents: -
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the accused-respondents vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the complainant. He urged that the High
Court has rightly quashed the criminal complaint
initiated by the complainant by adverting to the fact
that there existed change in circumstances since a
similar complaint filed by the complainant in respect
of property situated at Thanjavur already stands
quashed. He urged that the present case is a classic
example of abuse of criminal machinery by the
complainant.
8. Learned counsel argued that the impugned
order passed by the High Court does not amount to
review of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench
in the first quashing petition, since the second
quashing petition was filed raising different
grounds/pleas which were not effectively raised in
the first quashing petition. He urged that the High
8
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
Court has the power to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction at any stage of criminal proceedings in
order to prevent abuse of law and manifest injustice
and exercise of such power cannot be termed to be in
violation of the provisions of Section 362 CrPC.
9. He lastly urged that the inter se dispute between
the parties is purely civil in nature and the admitted
allegations can in no circumstance give rise to
criminal prosecution. The criminal proceedings have
been initiated against the accused-respondents with
the sole intent of harassing them.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of accused-respondents urged that the
order passed by the High Court is unassailable in law
as well as facts and implored the Court to dismiss the
appeal.
Discussion and Analysis: -
10. We have heard the submissions advanced at the
bar and have gone through the impugned order and
material placed on record.
11. The short question that arises for our
consideration is “Whether a second quashing petition
under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on
9
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised
even at the time of filing/decision of the first
quashing petition?”
12. At the outset, we may like to note that the
submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
accused-respondents that the second quashing
petition came to be filed based on new
grounds/pleas, is not tenable on the face of it. From
the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the
second quashing petition raised no such
grounds/pleas which were unavailable to the
accused-respondents at the time of adjudication of
the first quashing petition. The failure of the accused-
respondents to raise a pertinent ground/plea which
was tangibly available to them at the time of
adjudication of the first quashing petition can in no
circumstance grant a right to the said accused
persons to file a subsequent quashing petition as it
would amount to seeking review on pre-existing
material.
13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that
it is not open to an accused person to raise one plea
after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482
10
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available
to him even at the first instance. We may hasten to
add that there is no sweeping rule to the effect that a
second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is
not maintainable and its maintainability will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the onus to show that there arose a change
in circumstances warranting entertainment of a
subsequent quashing petition would be on the person
filing the said petition. In this regard, we may
gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court
in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP &
18
Anr. , which are extracted below for ready
reference:-
“ 11. …… Though it is clear that there can be no
blanket rule that a second petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation and it
would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of the individual case, 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. Permitting the filing of
successive petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable
an ingenious accused to effectively stall the
proceedings against him to suit his own
interest and convenience, by filing one
18
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399.
11
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
petition after another under Section 482
Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause
therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot
be permitted. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the
order passed by the High Court in the second
quashing petition amounted to review (plain and
simple) of the earlier order passed by the co-ordinate
bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition,
since there was admittedly no change in
circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became
available to the accused-respondents, after passing
of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition.
The order passed by the High Court is in gross
disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 CrPC
expressly bars review of a judgment or final order
disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or
arithmetical error.
15. This Court has time and again held that the
High Courts while exercising their inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override
a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC,
i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to
review its own decision under the purported exercise
12
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
of its inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid
conclusion, we may gainfully refer to the observations
made by this Court in the case of Simrikhia v.
Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and
19
Anr.
, the relevant portions whereof are quoted
below for ease of reference:
“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh , (1975) 3 SCC
706, this Court held that Section 561A preserves
the inherent power of the High Court to make
such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court or to secure the ends of
justice and the High Court must therefore
exercise its inherent powers having regard to the
situation prevailing at the particular point of
time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to
be invoked. In that case the facts and
circumstances obtaining at the time of the
subsequent application were clearly different
from what they were at the time of the earlier
application. The question as to the scope and
ambit of the inherent power of the High Court
vis-a-vis an earlier order made by it was,
therefore, not concluded by this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
cannot be invoked to override bar of review
u/s 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v.
Pyare Lal , (1981) 1 SCC 50 that the inherent
power of the Court cannot be exercised for
doing that which is specifically prohibited by
the Code. The law is therefore clear that the
inherent power cannot be exercised for doing
that which cannot be done on account of the
bar under other provisions of the Code. The
19
(1990) 2 SCC 437.
13
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
court is not empowered to review its own
decision under the purported exercise of
inherent power. We find that the impugned
order in this case is in effect one reviewing the
earlier order on a reconsideration of the same
materials. The High Court has grievously erred
in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any
compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at
that stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In the instant case, the quashing by the High
Court of a similar complaint, i.e., Criminal Complaint
No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant against the
accused-respondents in respect of properties
th
situated at Thanjavur vide order dated 9 March,
2020 was an event that happened well before the
dismissal of the first quashing petition under Section
482 CrPC and the said ground/plea was manifestly
available to the accused-respondents while seeking
adjudication of the first quashing petition. That being
the situation, the accused-respondents were not at
liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court raising the aforesaid ground/plea at a later
point of time by filing the second quashing petition.
17. As an upshot of the above discussion, we have
no hesitation in holding that the impugned order
passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of
14
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
the record and cannot be affirmed. Hence, the
th
impugned order dated 13 September, 2022 passed
by the High Court in Criminal Original Petition No.
16241 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. As a result,
thereof, the Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019
filed by the appellant-complainant against the
accused-respondents is restored to the file of the
learned IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
18. Needless to say, that all the defences available
to the accused-respondents shall remain open to be
raised before the appropriate forum at the proper
stage without being prejudiced by this order or the
orders passed by the High Court.
19. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
15
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022)
M.C. RAVIKUMAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
D.S. VELMURUGAN
& ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal has been filed against final
th 1
judgment and order dated 13 September, 2022
2
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
3
in quashing petition filed by the respondents
4
herein . Vide the impugned order, the High Court
allowed the quashing petition and quashed the
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned order”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
3
Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “accused-respondents”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.23
18:38:19 IST
Reason:
1
5 6
criminal complaint filed by the appellant herein
against the accused-respondents for the offences
punishable under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423,
468, 469 read with 34 and 120 of Indian Penal Code,
7
1860 before the learned IX Metropolitan Judicial
Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
Factual Background: -
4.
Facts in nutshell, relevant and essential for
disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4.1. The complainant has been engaged in travels
and finance business for several years. During 2005-
2008, the complainant entered into some loan
transactions with the accused-respondents who were
engaged in the business of money lending. To secure
the said loan transactions, the complainant gave the
original deeds of several of his properties situated at
Thanjavur and Chennai to the accused-respondents.
An agreement of sale came to be executed between C.
Natrajan (respondent No. 2) and the complainant in
5
Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.
6
Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant” or “appellant-complainant.
7
For short “IPC”.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
8 9
respect of a flat and a portion of plot situated at
th
Adyar, Chennai on 25 April, 2008.
rd
4.2. Thereafter, on 23 May, 2008, a tripartite
agreement came to be executed between the
complainant, one R.R. Vasudevan and D.S.
Velmurugan (respondent no. 1). Under the said
agreement, R.R. Vasudevan paid Rs. 79,00,000/- to
respondent No. 1, which was actually payable to the
complainant. Thereafter, the complainant cleared of
the remaining outstanding amount pertaining to the
loan transactions totaling Rs. 1,65,98,000/- and
having made such payment, he requested the
accused-respondents to return the original deeds
given as security against the loan amount. Since the
accused-respondents failed to respond to the
aforesaid request, the complainant was constrained
th
to issue legal notice dated 30 August, 2011 to them,
seeking return of the original documents.
4.3. It is alleged that after the receipt of the aforesaid
notice, respondent No. 1 executed a sham sale deed
8 nd
Flat No. 10 having plinth area of 935 sq. ft., First Floor, 2 Main Road,
Rams Flat, Adyar, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai.
9
3/87 undivided share of land measuring larger extent of 4 Grounds and
895 sq. ft. under Survey No. 42 Part, Block No. 36, Kottur Village, Plot No.
nd
126 Part, situated at Old Door No. 83, 2 Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai.
3
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
in respect of the complainant’s property situated at
Thanjavur, which was given as security against the
loan amount. On coming to know of the said
fraudulent transaction, the complainant filed a
nd
complaint on 22 November, 2011 with the Crime
Branch, Chennai after procuring orders of the High
Court. The said complaint came to be registered as
Crime No. 193 of 2012. The police filed closure report
in the said case and the same was accepted by Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide order
rd 10
dated 23 September, 2013. The revision petition
filed by the complainant was dismissed by the High
th
Court vide order dated 24 October, 2013 and the
11
special leave petition against the said order of the
High Court was dismissed by this Court vide order
th
dated 7 January, 2015, with an observation that in
the event, the complainant chose to pursue
appropriate remedies, the observations of the High
Court may not prejudice the same. In pursuance of
the said order of this Court, the complainant filed yet
another Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 before
Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thanjavur against
10
Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 1305 of 2013.
11
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1042 of 2014.
4
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
respondent No. 1 and the co-accused persons.
12
However, the quashing petition filed by respondent
No. 1 and other co-accused persons seeking
quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 was
th
allowed by the High Court vide order dated 9 March,
2020.
13
4.4. In the meantime, one P. Jothikumar filed Civil
Suit No. 79 of 2018 before the High Court seeking a
money decree to the tune of Rs. 1,24,62,000/- in
respect of the amount allegedly loaned by him to the
complainant. The said suit was filed by exhibiting the
original documents of the flat, which as per the
complainant were actually handed over to the
accused-respondents as security.
4.5. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred
Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 before the IX
Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
against the accused-respondents and P. Jothikumar
(accused No. 4) for the offences punishable under
Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with
34 and 120 of IPC. In the said complaint, summons
12
Criminal Original Petition (MD) Nos. 13228 of 2015 and 19634 of 2016.
13
Accused No. 4 in Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.
5
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
came to be issued against all the accused persons
th
vide order dated 27 April, 2019.
4.6. The accused-respondents filed the first
14
quashing petition before the High Court seeking the
quashing of the aforesaid complaint. The said
petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide
nd
speaking order dated 22 December, 2021. The
accused-respondents after waiting for 6 months
15
preferred a second quashing petition before the
High Court seeking the quashing of the very same
complaint i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.
4.7. The High Court vide final judgment and order
th
dated 13 September, 2022 allowed the second
quashing petition and quashed entire proceedings of
Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 filed by the
appellant-complainant. The said order of High Court
is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by
special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant-
complainant: -
5.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-complainant, vehemently and fervently
14
Criminal Original Petition No. 14186 of 2019.
15
Supra Note 3.
6
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
argued that the High Court fell in grave error while
allowing the second quashing petition filed by the
accused-respondents which was based on the very
same grounds/pleas which were taken in the first
quashing petition. He urged that there was no change
in circumstances and there existed no new ground
for entertaining the second quashing petition.
6. Learned counsel urged that the impugned order
tantamounts to review of the previous order passed
by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court which is
impermissible in view of the bar prescribed under
16
Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Corresponding to Section 403 of Bhartiya Nagarik
17
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ). He contended that the
High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC (Corresponding to Section
528 BNSS) cannot be allowed to review an earlier
order as the same is expressly barred by Section 362
CrPC.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-complainant implored this
16
For short “CrPC”.
17
For short “BNSS”.
7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
Court to accept the appeal and set aside the
impugned order passed by the High Court.
Submissions on behalf of the accused-
respondents: -
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the accused-respondents vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the complainant. He urged that the High
Court has rightly quashed the criminal complaint
initiated by the complainant by adverting to the fact
that there existed change in circumstances since a
similar complaint filed by the complainant in respect
of property situated at Thanjavur already stands
quashed. He urged that the present case is a classic
example of abuse of criminal machinery by the
complainant.
8. Learned counsel argued that the impugned
order passed by the High Court does not amount to
review of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench
in the first quashing petition, since the second
quashing petition was filed raising different
grounds/pleas which were not effectively raised in
the first quashing petition. He urged that the High
8
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
Court has the power to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction at any stage of criminal proceedings in
order to prevent abuse of law and manifest injustice
and exercise of such power cannot be termed to be in
violation of the provisions of Section 362 CrPC.
9. He lastly urged that the inter se dispute between
the parties is purely civil in nature and the admitted
allegations can in no circumstance give rise to
criminal prosecution. The criminal proceedings have
been initiated against the accused-respondents with
the sole intent of harassing them.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of accused-respondents urged that the
order passed by the High Court is unassailable in law
as well as facts and implored the Court to dismiss the
appeal.
Discussion and Analysis: -
10. We have heard the submissions advanced at the
bar and have gone through the impugned order and
material placed on record.
11. The short question that arises for our
consideration is “Whether a second quashing petition
under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on
9
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised
even at the time of filing/decision of the first
quashing petition?”
12. At the outset, we may like to note that the
submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
accused-respondents that the second quashing
petition came to be filed based on new
grounds/pleas, is not tenable on the face of it. From
the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the
second quashing petition raised no such
grounds/pleas which were unavailable to the
accused-respondents at the time of adjudication of
the first quashing petition. The failure of the accused-
respondents to raise a pertinent ground/plea which
was tangibly available to them at the time of
adjudication of the first quashing petition can in no
circumstance grant a right to the said accused
persons to file a subsequent quashing petition as it
would amount to seeking review on pre-existing
material.
13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that
it is not open to an accused person to raise one plea
after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482
10
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available
to him even at the first instance. We may hasten to
add that there is no sweeping rule to the effect that a
second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is
not maintainable and its maintainability will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the onus to show that there arose a change
in circumstances warranting entertainment of a
subsequent quashing petition would be on the person
filing the said petition. In this regard, we may
gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court
in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP &
18
Anr. , which are extracted below for ready
reference:-
“ 11. …… Though it is clear that there can be no
blanket rule that a second petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation and it
would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of the individual case, 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. Permitting the filing of
successive petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable
an ingenious accused to effectively stall the
proceedings against him to suit his own
interest and convenience, by filing one
18
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399.
11
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
petition after another under Section 482
Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause
therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot
be permitted. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the
order passed by the High Court in the second
quashing petition amounted to review (plain and
simple) of the earlier order passed by the co-ordinate
bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition,
since there was admittedly no change in
circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became
available to the accused-respondents, after passing
of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition.
The order passed by the High Court is in gross
disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 CrPC
expressly bars review of a judgment or final order
disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or
arithmetical error.
15. This Court has time and again held that the
High Courts while exercising their inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override
a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC,
i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to
review its own decision under the purported exercise
12
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
of its inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid
conclusion, we may gainfully refer to the observations
made by this Court in the case of Simrikhia v.
Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and
19
Anr.
, the relevant portions whereof are quoted
below for ease of reference:
“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh , (1975) 3 SCC
706, this Court held that Section 561A preserves
the inherent power of the High Court to make
such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court or to secure the ends of
justice and the High Court must therefore
exercise its inherent powers having regard to the
situation prevailing at the particular point of
time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to
be invoked. In that case the facts and
circumstances obtaining at the time of the
subsequent application were clearly different
from what they were at the time of the earlier
application. The question as to the scope and
ambit of the inherent power of the High Court
vis-a-vis an earlier order made by it was,
therefore, not concluded by this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
cannot be invoked to override bar of review
u/s 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v.
Pyare Lal , (1981) 1 SCC 50 that the inherent
power of the Court cannot be exercised for
doing that which is specifically prohibited by
the Code. The law is therefore clear that the
inherent power cannot be exercised for doing
that which cannot be done on account of the
bar under other provisions of the Code. The
19
(1990) 2 SCC 437.
13
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
court is not empowered to review its own
decision under the purported exercise of
inherent power. We find that the impugned
order in this case is in effect one reviewing the
earlier order on a reconsideration of the same
materials. The High Court has grievously erred
in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any
compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at
that stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In the instant case, the quashing by the High
Court of a similar complaint, i.e., Criminal Complaint
No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant against the
accused-respondents in respect of properties
th
situated at Thanjavur vide order dated 9 March,
2020 was an event that happened well before the
dismissal of the first quashing petition under Section
482 CrPC and the said ground/plea was manifestly
available to the accused-respondents while seeking
adjudication of the first quashing petition. That being
the situation, the accused-respondents were not at
liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court raising the aforesaid ground/plea at a later
point of time by filing the second quashing petition.
17. As an upshot of the above discussion, we have
no hesitation in holding that the impugned order
passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of
14
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022
the record and cannot be affirmed. Hence, the
th
impugned order dated 13 September, 2022 passed
by the High Court in Criminal Original Petition No.
16241 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. As a result,
thereof, the Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019
filed by the appellant-complainant against the
accused-respondents is restored to the file of the
learned IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
18. Needless to say, that all the defences available
to the accused-respondents shall remain open to be
raised before the appropriate forum at the proper
stage without being prejudiced by this order or the
orders passed by the High Court.
19. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
15
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022