S.482 CrPC | Second Quashing Petition On Grounds Available Earlier Not Maintainable : Supreme Court

Observing that the principle of constructive res judicata applies to quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court yesterday (July 23) ruled that a second quashing petition cannot be filed on grounds available but not argued in the earlier petition.

The Court reiterated that the second petition would be maintainable only when it is shown that a change arose in circumstances warranting the filing of a subsequent quashing petition.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Madras High Court initially dismissed the accused's first quashing petition (December 2021) but later allowed a second petition (September 2022) on similar grounds, prompting the complainant's appeal before the Supreme Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta set aside the Madras High Court's order that had allowed a second quashing petition by the accused, noting that the grounds raised were identical to those in the earlier petition (being dismissed) and had not been advanced previously, despite being available at the time.

“In the instant case, the quashing by the High Court of a similar complaint, i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant against the accused-respondents in respect of properties situated at Thanjavur vide order dated 9th March, 2020 was an event that happened well before the dismissal of the first quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and the said ground/plea was manifestly available to the accused-respondents while seeking adjudication of the first quashing petition. That being the situation, the accused-respondents were not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court raising the aforesaid ground/plea at a later point of time by filing the second quashing petition.”, the court observed.

The Court noted that the High Court's order amounted to reviewing its own decision, and therefore violated Section 362 CrPC (which prohibits review except for clerical errors).

“Furthermore, we are of the opinion that 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 Section 362 Cr.P.C. expressly bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.”, the court said.

The Court cited Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 935 to reiterate that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to re-litigate issues already available in the first petition.

Cause Title: M.C. RAVIKUMAR VERSUS D.S. VELMURUGAN & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. R. Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR Mr. Tanuj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Md. Ashfaq, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Vinayaga Vignesh I, Adv. Mr. Vasu Kalra, Adv.