Second Quashing Petition Based on Earlier Available Grounds Is Not Maintainable, SC Restores Criminal Complaint

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal against the Madras High Court's decision which had quashed a criminal complaint alleging fraud, forgery and cheating. The core issue concerned the maintainability of a second quashing petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and whether a High Court could, in effect, review an earlier co‑ordinate bench order in circumstances where no new grounds or change of circumstances had arisen.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order dated 13 September 2022 and restored Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 to the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable where the grounds urged were available at the time of the first petition and that permitting successive petitions on the same available grounds would amount to an impermissible review of a final order barred by Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that "it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance," and that such conduct would enable an accused to "effectively stall the proceedings against him." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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, 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 Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.” The Court also noted that "the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code."

Background The complainant, a businessman engaged in travel and finance, alleged that between 2005 and 2008 he advanced loans and handed over original title deeds of properties in Thanjavur and Chennai to moneylenders, the accused‑respondents, as security. A tripartite agreement and subsequent payments were pleaded, and the complainant alleged that after repaying the dues he sought return of the documents. He alleged that a sham sale deed was executed in respect of a Thanjavur property, and filed earlier complaints and petitions: a Crime Branch complaint (Crime No. 193 of 2012) led to a closure report accepted by the Magistrate and challenge dismissed by the High Court and by this Court in 2015; Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 was later quashed by the High Court on 9 March 2020. In 2018 a civil suit was filed by a third party who produced original documents. The complainant then filed Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 against the accused and the third party; summons issued in April 2019.

The accused filed a first quashing petition under Section 482 which the High Court dismissed on 22 December 2021. After six months they filed a second quashing petition raising largely the same grounds; the High Court allowed that second petition and quashed the 2019 complaint. The appellant sought special leave to challenge that quashing.

Relying on this Court’s precedents including Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP and Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, the Supreme Court held that successive petitions invoking inherent jurisdiction on grounds available earlier would amount to abuse of process and impermissible review. The Court found no new circumstance or ground that justified entertaining the second petition and held the High Court had erred in effecting a review contrary to Section 362 CrPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned High Court order and restored the criminal complaint. The Court clarified that all defences available to the accused‑respondents remained open to be raised at the appropriate stage and that pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 888 Case Title: M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Names not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Names not indicated in the judgment