The Supreme Court ruled that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible if based on grounds available during the first petition, as it effectively amounts to a review barred under Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, preventing abuse of legal process through successive petitions. The judgment reaffirmed that change in circumstances or new grounds must be demonstrated for entertaining subsequent quashing petitions, ensuring judicial discipline and preventing harassment via repetitive litigation. The High Court’s order allowing a second petition was set aside, restoring the criminal complaint for trial.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a dispute between the appellant, M.C. Ravikumar, and the respondents, D.S. Velmurugan and others, over alleged fraudulent transactions related to loan agreements and property documents. Ravikumar, engaged in travel and finance businesses, had entered into loan transactions with the respondents between 2005-2008, providing original property deeds as security. Despite clearing the loan of ₹1.65 crore, the respondents allegedly refused to return the documents.In 2011, Ravikumar discovered that respondent No. 1 had fraudulently executed a sale deed for his Thanjavur property. He filed a police complaint, but it was closed, and subsequent legal challenges were dismissed. Later, a civil suit was filed by a third party (P. Jothikumar) claiming money against Ravikumar, using the same property documents.Ravikumar then filed Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging offences under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 IPC (forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust). The High Court initially dismissed the respondents’ first quashing petition (Dec 2021) but later allowed a second petition (Sept 2022), quashing the complaint.The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that a second quashing petition without new grounds was impermissible under Section 482 CrPC, as it amounted to a barred review under Section 362 CrPC. The criminal complaint was restored for trial.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began when the appellant, M.C. Ravikumar, filed Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 before the IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, alleging offences under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 IPC against the respondents. The Magistrate issued summons to the accused on 27th April 2019.The accused-respondents filed their first quashing petition (Criminal O.P. No. 14186 of 2019) before the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 22nd December 2021 after a detailed hearing. Six months later, the respondents filed a second quashing petition (Criminal O.P. No. 16241 of 2022) on largely the same grounds. This time, the High Court allowed the petition on 13th September 2022, quashing the criminal complaint.Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12715 of 2022. The Supreme Court granted leave and, in its judgment dated 23rd July 2025, set aside the High Court’s order, ruling that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC was impermissible without new grounds, as it effectively amounted to a review barred under Section 362 CrPC. The criminal complaint was restored for trial before the Magistrate.
READ ALSO :Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while overturning the Madras High Court’s decision. It firmly held that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be entertained when based on grounds that were available but not raised in the first petition, as this amounts to an impermissible review barred by Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot override statutory prohibitions, including the ban on reviewing judgments.The bench noted that no change in circumstances or new grounds justified the High Court’s reconsideration of the matter. It observed that allowing successive quashing petitions on the same grounds would encourage abuse of legal process, enabling accused persons to indefinitely delay trials. The Court reaffirmed that judicial discipline and finality of orders must be upheld, preventing litigants from seeking multiple bites at the cherry.Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that while Section 482 CrPC grants broad inherent powers, these cannot be used to circumvent specific legal bars like Section 362 CrPC. It stressed that High Courts must exercise restraint in entertaining repetitive petitions to prevent harassment through litigation. The judgment reinforced precedents holding that inherent powers are not an alternative remedy for review when statutory provisions expressly forbid it.Ultimately, the Court restored the criminal complaint, allowing the trial to proceed while preserving all defenses available to the accused. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against frivolous litigation tactics undermining the criminal justice system.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 13th September 2022. In its final decision, the apex court restored Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 to the file of the IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, directing that the trial proceedings should continue in accordance with law. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the High Court had committed a grave error in entertaining the second quashing petition when no new grounds or change in circumstances existed to warrant reconsideration The judgment categorically stated that allowing successive quashing petitions on identical grounds would open floodgates to abuse of process, undermining the finality of judicial orders. While clarifying that this does not create an absolute bar on subsequent petitions, the Court emphasized that fresh material or substantial change in circumstances must be demonstrated to justify reconsideration. The ruling reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the statutory prohibition against review under Section 362 CrPC.The Supreme Court made it clear that its decision does not prejudice any defenses available to the accused-respondents, which may be raised during trial. The judgment, delivered on 23rd July 2025, reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be derailed through procedural stratagems, while ensuring that legitimate grievances can be addressed through proper legal channels
Download The Judgement Here