Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Over Property Fraud Allegations: Quashing by Madras High Court Set Aside: Bench Led by Justices V. Nath and S. Mehta

Section 482 power of the High Court is a very essential aspect of the code of criminal procedure operator to avoid abuse of process and achieve justice to the ends. The exercise of the power, especially with regard to repeated quashing petitions, has been under close judicial observations however. Since the interaction of the High Court and the inherent powers of the High Court with regard to its review of its own orders was related by a recent judgment, this judgment would provide insight into the circumstances in which a second quashing petition by a party becomes an option and also pertain to the limitations of the inherent powers of the High Court.

The maintainability of Second Quashing Petition

Although, no blanket prohibition exists to the effect that second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable, it will depend on the facts and circumstances of case to case basis whether it is permissible or not. It is upon a person making a claim of a subsequent quashing petition to prove a change in circumstances that necessitate the granting. The idea behind this principle is to avoid the misuse of the legal process by an accused who may end up filing several petitions in the process to delay a case. The court cited a case of

Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP and Anr. in pointing to the fact that although there is not a blanket injunction against second petition under Section 482 CrPC that may be filed, it is not permissible that a party grieved tries to adopt perpetually, new pleas that were open at the first pass. To permit such successive petitions, to a different case, without circumstances, would so practically amount to the practice of allowing an ingenious accused not only to adjourn to his own convenience, but to prosecute an action step by step, whenever it might suit his purpose; which is the abuse of process, and is not to be permitted.

Bar to Review of prior Orders

An important point that is raised in the judgment is that an order which is passed by the high court on a second quashing petition can be considered as a review of the previous order by the same bench as it is a co-ordinate bench, when there is no considered change in circumstances or new grounds emerges available to the accused. This is in utter disrespect to the law wherein Section 362 CrPC clearly states that no judgment or final order disposing off a case can be reviewed other than to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake.

In Section 482 CrPC, the High Courts cannot exercise their inherent jurisdiction to ignore certain bars created in other provisions of CrPC, even under its inherent jurisdiction. In this sense, High Court lacks the power to review its own decision through the so called and use of inherent powers by the High Court. The court cited a case of

Simrikhia v. To reinforce this conclusion Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr. In

Superintendent and remembrancer of the legal affairs v. Section 561A (which gave way to Section 482 CrPC) was not concerned with destruction of the inherent power of the High Court to stop an abuse of process or to uphold the ends of justice, Mohan Singh was held. But in that case the facts and circumstances of the subsequent application were distinctly different to those of the previous application and the case did not dispose of the extent of inherent power in relation to an earlier order.

The statute is plain: that inherent power of court may not be used to do what is specifically prohibited by the Code. That is why when there is a particular bar under different clauses of the Code, the inherent power cannot be applied to outwit bar. The court reiterated that, a court has no authority to sit to review its own decision under the so-called inherent power. The impugned order in the case at hand was a real review of an earlier order where the same materials were revisited and this was gravely wrong on the part of the High Court. Merely on the merits the court did not see any strong reason to abrogate the proceedings at that point.

Application on the Specific Case

In the case in question upon which the judgment is passed, the High Court had quashed a parallel criminal complaint of properties which were located in Thanjavur much before the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC was passed and dismissed. This is a certain ground or defense that clearly lay open to the accused-respondents as they sought the adjudication of their original quashing petition. That being the case, the said accused-respondents did not have the privilege of using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court by making the said ground or plea at a later stage of time via filing a second appeal of quashing.

The impugned order passed by the High Court was not justified and could not be affirmed as clearly mentioned by the judgment. The order of the High Court which was made in the second criminal original petition was therefore quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original criminal complaint that the appellant-complainant filed against the accused- respondents was given back to the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Defenses are available to the accused-respondents were clarified and these defenses could only be raised before the appropriate forum at the proper stage without being prejudiced by this order or the orders that were passed by the High Court. An appeal was consequently granted. What this ruling has done is to strengthen the idea that successive quashing petitions under CrPC Section 482 are not purely disallowed but they can be accepted only under unique situations namely when new grounds or that there is a change of circumstances. More importantly, powers that are inherent in the High Court cannot be employed so as to evade the statutory prohibition against the review of its decisions.