Supreme Court Restricts Second Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Bhisham Lal Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: October 30, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 955

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J and Sanjay Kumar, J

Can an accused file multiple petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), raising new challenges each time? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits on invoking the High Court’s inherent powers. This judgment clarifies that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if the grounds for challenge were available during the first petition. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

The case involves a complaint filed on June 23, 2012, by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme. The complaint implicated the petitioner, Bhisham Lal Verma, who was the Project Director/Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, at the time. The allegations included embezzlement of public funds. Based on this complaint, C.C. No. 1280 of 2012 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Government of Uttar Pradesh sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner on December 3, 2013, under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 471 of the IPC, and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on April 30, 2015, before the Sessions Judge, Rampur. The petitioner was charged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Sessions Judge, Rampur, took cognizance of the charges on June 12, 2015. The case was then transferred to the Special Court at Bareilly, becoming Special Case No. 19 of 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018 under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Allahabad High Court, challenging only the government’s sanction order dated December 3, 2013. The High Court, on December 15, 2020, disposed of this application, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Trial Court to challenge the sanction. Subsequently, in 2022, the petitioner filed a second petition, Criminal Misc. Application No. 2014 of 2022, under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the charge sheet dated April 30, 2015, the cognizance order dated June 12, 2015, and the proceedings in Special Case No. 19 of 2016. The Allahabad High Court dismissed this second petition on February 20, 2023, stating that the petitioner could not challenge the proceedings piecemeal, having not raised objections to the charge sheet and cognizance order in the first petition. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court. This section states:

“Saving of inherent power of High Court. – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Court also considered Section 197 of the CrPC, which deals with the prosecution of Judges and public servants, and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants. The court also referred to Section 362 of the CrPC which bars review of judgments.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and others [(1975) 3 SCC 706], which held that a subsequent application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC), is maintainable in changed circumstances.
• The petitioner also cited Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another [(2019) 17 SCC 294], which affirmed the maintainability of a subsequent application not based on the same facts and circumstances.
• Further, the petitioner referred to S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another [(2007) 4 SCC 70], where the Court held that if the first petition under Section 482 CrPC was withdrawn with liberty to avail other remedies, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction would not be barred.
• The petitioner also cited Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition No. 255 of 2021, decided on 29.06.2021 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559], where a 3-Judge Bench observed that the dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC would not bar a subsequent petition if the facts justify it.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments:

• The amicus curiae argued that the second petition in Mohan Singh (supra) was allowed because the circumstances were different from the first petition.
• The amicus curiae cited Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and another [(1990) 2 SCC 437], cautioning that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override the bar of review under Section 362 CrPC.
• The amicus curiae referred to Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another [(1981) 1 SCC 500], which held that the inherent power of the Court cannot be used to do what is specifically prohibited by the CrPC.
• The amicus curiae also referred to R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others [(2002) 10 SCC 401], where a second petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed because it was based on facts that existed before the dismissal of the first petition.

The Madras High Court’s observation in S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan [2006 SCC Online Mad 94] was also highlighted, stating that a person invoking Section 482 CrPC should raise all available pleas at once and not approach the court with piecemeal pleas.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Is a second petition maintainable under Section 482 CrPC on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition thereunder?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court distinguished Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and others [(1975) 3 SCC 706], Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another [(2019) 17 SCC 294], S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another [(2007) 4 SCC 70] and Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition No. 255 of 2021, decided on 29.06.2021 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559], stating that the facts of the present case were different. The Court followed Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and another [(1990) 2 SCC 437], Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another [(1981) 1 SCC 500], R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others [(2002) 10 SCC 401] and S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan [2006 SCC Online Mad 94] to hold that the second petition was not maintainable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that a person cannot raise one plea after another by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC when all such pleas were available at the first instance. The Court was concerned that allowing successive petitions would enable an accused to effectively stall the proceedings against them. The Court also highlighted that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used to override the bar of review under Section 362 CrPC or to do something that is specifically prohibited by the CrPC. The Court noted that the charge sheet and cognizance order were in place before the first petition was filed, and therefore, the petitioner should have raised all objections at that time.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a party should raise all available pleas at the earliest opportunity. The Court stated, “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 noted that, “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”. The Court further clarified, “That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time.”

Key Takeaways

• A second petition under Section 482 CrPC is generally not maintainable if the grounds for challenge were available during the first petition.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the bar of review under Section 362 CrPC.
• Accused persons must raise all available pleas at the earliest opportunity and cannot file piecemeal petitions to stall proceedings.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that parties should not be allowed to abuse the process of the court by filing successive petitions on grounds that were available earlier.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable if the grounds for challenge were available at the time of filing of the first petition. This clarifies the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court and reinforces the principle that parties cannot abuse the process of the court by filing successive petitions on grounds that were available earlier. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that all available pleas should be raised at the earliest opportunity and that successive petitions on the same grounds are not permissible. This judgment clarifies the limitations on invoking the inherent powers of the High Court and aims to prevent the abuse of the legal process.