2023 (10) TMI 1342 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of second petition - Is a second petition maintainable Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition thereunder? HELD THAT - Though it is clear that there can be no blanket Rule that a second petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious Accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted. In the case on hand, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order. That being so, the Petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. The impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court holding to this effect is, therefore, incontrovertible on all counts and does not warrant interference - SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of a second petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Summary:
The case involved the question of whether a second petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure could be maintained on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing the first petition. The appellant, a Project Director/Additional District Magistrate, was implicated in a case regarding irregularities in the construction of toilets and embezzlement of public funds. The Government of Uttar Pradesh accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant, and a charge sheet was laid before the Sessions Judge. The appellant filed a first petition challenging the sanction order, which was disposed of by granting liberty to approach the Trial Court. Subsequently, the appellant filed a second petition seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings in the case. The Allahabad High Court dismissed this second petition, stating that the appellant could not challenge the proceedings one by one as he had not felt aggrieved by them when filing the first petition. The appellant argued that a second petition was maintainable, citing relevant case law. However, the Court held that the appellant was not at liberty to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction at a later point regarding matters already challenged in the first petition. The Court emphasized that permitting successive petitions would enable abuse of process and stall proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court was upheld, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court appreciated the assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae in the case.