Penal Code, 1860 – ss.193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 r/w
34 and 120 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Complainant preferred criminal complaint no.1828 of 2019 against accused-respondents before the IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable u/ss.193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 r/w 34 and 120 of IPC – In the said complaint, summons came to be issued against all the accused persons vide order dated 27.04.2019 – The accusedrespondents filed the first quashing petition before the High Court seeking the quashing of the aforesaid complaint – The said petition came to be dismissed by the High Court – The accused-respondents after 6 months preferred a second quashing petition seeking the quashing of the very same complaint – The High Court allowed the second quashing petition and quashed entire proceedings of criminal complaint no. 1828 of 2019 filed by the appellant-complainant – Whether the order passed by the High Court was justified: Held: 1. The impugned order passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of the record. [Para 17]
2. The submission advanced by the accused-respondents that the second quashing petition came to be filed based on new grounds/pleas, is not tenable on the face of it – From the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that 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. [Para 12]
3. 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, after passing of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition – The order passed by the High Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as s.362 CrPC expressly bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error. [Para 14] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Repeated invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s.482: Held: It is settled 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 u/s.482 CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available to him even at the first instance – There is no sweeping rule to the effect that a second quashing petition u/s.482 CrPC is not maintainable and its maintainability will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case – However, the onus to show that there arose a change in circumstances warranting entertainment of a subsequent quashing petition would be on the person filing the said petition. [Para 13]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Whether High Courts while exercising their inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC override a specific bar laid down by the other provisions of CrPC:
Held: This Court has time and again held that the High Courts while exercising their inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC cannot override a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC, i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of its inherent powers. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.