Case Details Bhisham Lal Verma vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

30 October 2023

Case No.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7976 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Kumar

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 55 : 2023 INSC 955

Issue for consideration

Is a second petition maintainable u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition thereunder.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – A complaint case was registered u/ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC r/w. ss. 7 and

13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Petitioner was amongst the accused named therein – The State Government accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner – Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was prepared and cognizance was taken – In 2018, Petitioner filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. and challenged only Government’s sanction and same was disposed of with liberty to approach Trial Court – In 2022, the petitioner again filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. with prayers to quash charge-sheet and the cognizance order – Propriety: Held: Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition u/s. 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 u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance – Permitting the filing of successive petitions u/s. 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 u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose – Such abuse of process cannot be permitted – In the instant case, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order – 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. [Paras 11 and 12] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER SANJAY KUMAR, J. 1. ‘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?’ 2. This is the short question that arises for consideration. 3. As the issue turned on the very maintainability of the case, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist the Court and, with his usual graciousness, he agreed to do so. 4. We may first note the relevant facts: Complaint dated 23.06.2012 was filed by the Joint Director, State

View Subscription Plans →