Pranav B Prem

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that there is no absolute prohibition against filing successive petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, such petitions must demonstrate a change in the facts and circumstances necessitating their filing.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made these observations while hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Lakshmangarh, District Sikar, by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 452, 323, and 341/34 IPC. The order had been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in a subsequent revision petition.

Procedural History

In 2021, the petitioners had approached the High Court through S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6655/2021, challenging the same orders. However, they withdrew the petition with the liberty to raise all arguments at the stage of charge-framing. Despite this, they filed the present petition without any material change in the facts or circumstances. The petitioners argued that the case registered against them was a counterblast to an FIR they had filed, in which the police had submitted a negative final report. A protest petition filed by the complainant in response led to cognizance being taken against the petitioners. It was further contended that the witnesses in the protest petition had made contradictory statements that were not corroborated by medical evidence.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant maintained that the police investigation had been flawed, necessitating the protest petition. They argued that the statements recorded during the protest petition proceedings established a prima facie case against the petitioners, justifying the cognizance taken by the ACJM.

Court's Analysis

After reviewing the materials on record, the court noted that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court had passed detailed and reasoned orders. Justice Dhand observed that, as per settled law, at the stage of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is required to be assessed, not the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. The court referred to precedents such as Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada and Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta & Ors. to emphasize this principle.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., which held that successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC are permissible only if there is a substantial change in facts or circumstances. Since no charges had been framed against the petitioners and no such change was evident, the court concluded that the petition was not maintainable.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners had concealed the fact of their earlier petition filed in 2021. This omission, coupled with the absence of any new factual developments, rendered the successive petition untenable. However, the court clarified that the petitioners are entitled to present all arguments and objections at the stage of charge-framing.

Cause Title: Mohanlal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9188/2022

Date: January-03-2025

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

[Read/Download order]