Second Quashing Petition Under Section 482 CrPC Not Maintainable On Pre-Existing Grounds | Supreme Court Restores Criminal Complaint
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal challenging the High Court's order that had quashed a criminal complaint initiated by the appellant. The Court held that a second quashing petition, based on grounds available at the time of the first petition, was not maintainable and amounted to a review of the earlier decision, which is explicitly barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed that the High Court's exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could not be used to override the statutory bar imposed by Section 362. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned order of the High Court and directed that the criminal complaint filed by the appellant be restored to the file of the trial court for further proceedings. The Court further clarified that all defences available to the accused respondents would remain open for assertion before the appropriate forum without being prejudiced by its judgements or the earlier orders.
The appellant was engaged in the business of travel and finance and had entered into loan transactions with the respondents between 2005 and 2008. These transactions were secured by handing over original title deeds of several properties located in Thanjavur and Chennai to the accused respondents. In one of the transactions, a sale agreement dated 25 April 2008 was executed between the appellant and one of the respondents for a flat and a share of land situated in Adyar, Chennai.
Subsequently, a tripartite agreement was entered on 23 May 2008 among the appellant, R.R. Vasudevan, and D.S. Velmurugan, where Vasudevan paid an amount of Rs. 79,00,000 to respondent No. 1, which was meant for the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant settled all remaining dues totalling Rs. 1,65,98,000. Following full repayment, the appellant requested the return of the original title deeds, but the respondents failed to comply. Consequently, a legal notice was issued on 30 August 2011 demanding the return of the documents.
The appellant alleged that after receiving the notice, respondent No. 1 executed a fraudulent sale deed in respect of the property at Thanjavur, which had been provided as security. The appellant lodged a police complaint on 22 November 2011, which was registered as Crime No. 193 of 2012 with the Crime Branch, Chennai. This case was closed, and the closure report was accepted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on 23 September 2013. The appellant's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on 24 October 2013. A special leave petition before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 7 January 2015 with the observation that if the appellant pursued alternative remedies, the earlier High Court observations would not prejudice them.
Based on this liberty, the appellant filed Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 before Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thanjavur, against respondent No. 1 and other co-accused. However, the complaint was quashed by the High Court through Criminal Original Petition Nos. 13228 of 2015 and 19634 of 2016 vide order dated 9 March 2020.
In 2018, one P. Jothikumar (Accused No. 4) filed a civil suit bearing No. 79 of 2018 before the High Court seeking recovery of Rs. 1,24,62,000, allegedly lent to the appellant. The said suit relied on original property documents that the appellant contended had been handed to the accused respondents as security.
Subsequently, the appellant filed Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 before the IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against all the accused for offences under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with Sections 34 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court issued summons on 27 April 2019.
The accused filed the first quashing petition (Criminal Original Petition No. 14186 of 2019), which was dismissed by the High Court on 22 December 2021 through a speaking order. After six months, the respondents filed a second quashing petition—Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022—seeking to quash the same complaint.
The High Court, by its order dated 13 September 2022, allowed the second quashing petition and quashed the proceedings. The said order became the subject matter of the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed in para 11 that the central question for consideration was: "Whether a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised even at the time of filing/decision of the first quashing petition?"
The Court recorded that the argument of the respondents asserting new grounds was "not tenable on the face of it." It noted: "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."
It further stated: "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."
Citing precedent, the Court noted in para 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 CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available to him even at the first instance."
The Court referred to Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399, observing: "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."
The Court held in para 14: "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."
Referring to Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437, the Court stated: "The 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 Court also recorded in para 16: "The quashing by the High Court of a similar complaint... was an event that happened well before the dismissal 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."
The Court conclusively held "We have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of the record and cannot be affirmed. Hence, the impugned order dated 13th September, 2022 passed by the High Court in Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022 is quashed and set aside."
It further directed: "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."
Additionally, the Bench stated "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."
The Court disposed of pending applications with the statement "Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For Petitioners: R. Venkataraman, Tanuj Agarwal, C. Aravindh, Apoorva Singhal, Ashfaq, Akol Kumar
For Respondents: M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Manoj Kumar A., Vinayaga Vignesh I, V. Swetha, Vasu Kalra
Case Title: M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 888
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12715 of 2022)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
