An Ingenious Accused Will Effectively Stall Proceedings- Supreme Court Holds That Second Petition U/s. 482 CrPC Is Not Maintainable On Grounds That Were Available At Time Of First Petition
|The Supreme Court observed that permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) would enable an ingenious accused to stall any proceedings against him per his interest and convenience. The Court held that a second petition maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition.
The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the High Court whereby the petitioner's application for a second petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized the importance of following the principle of not allowing successive petitions under Section 482 regardless of when the cause for such petitions arises.
“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 petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted”, the Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed.
Senior Advocate Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared as amicus curiae.
A complaint was filed alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low-Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of public funds. The Petitioner was the Project Director/Additional District Magistrate at the time and was implicated in the complaint. The Petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). On December 3, 2013, the Government accorded sanction to prosecute the Petitioner for the alleged offences. The Sessions Court charged the Petitioner with offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the High Court, challenging the Government’s sanction order. The High Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order. The Petitioner filed a second petition, praying to quash the charge sheet which was dismissed. The Petitioner approached the Court and challenged the order of the High Court.
The Court ascertained the following issue:
“Is a second petition maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition thereunder?”.
The Court reiterated that there cannot be a universal rule that a second petition under Section 482 of the CrPC would not be allowed under any circumstances. The Court observed that the maintainability of a second petition would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not permissible for an aggrieved person to raise one plea after another by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482.
“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”, the Bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition and affirmed the impugned order.
Cause Title: Bhisham Lal Verma v State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023 INSC 955)