2024 (12) TMI 1528 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of second petition - Dishonour of Cheque - imposition of a condition to deposit 20% of compensation by the Sessions Court - dismissal of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - rule of audi alterem partem - whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition under section 482 Cr. PC for the reason that it assigned? - HELD THAT - The High Court was unjustified in dismissing the subsequent petition on the ground that the appellants had withdrawn the earlier petition without obtaining leave to file afresh and therefore the petition under consideration was not maintainable. The procedural laws governing criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in our country are quite dissimilar though the rule of audi alteram partem and a procedure that is both fair and reasonable to both/all parties for rendering justice are at the heart of both the Cr. PC and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - A close reading of Sections 482 Cr. PC and 115 CPC would also reflect that the purposes sought to be achieved by exercising the high courts inherent powers which the respective procedural laws save are also at variance. Prudence and propriety in the decision making process thus make it imperative for the high courts to not confuse the procedural laws governing criminal and civil proceedings. The legal position as to whether a second petition under Section 482 Cr. PC would be maintainable or not is no longer res integra - In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla 2007 (2) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT a decision arising out of the N.I. Act the relevant high court had given the party the liberty to avail any remedy in law if available at the time of withdrawing her petition under section 482 Cr. PC. This Court observed that the high court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata. This Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. 2023 (10) TMI 1342 - SUPREME COURT has again held that there is no blanket rule against filing of successive petition under section 482 Cr. PC before the high court. It was also held that if such a petition is filed it must be seen whether there was any change in facts or circumstances necessitating the filing of such petition - Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made inter alia either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. While there can be no gainsaying that normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon the factual situation in every individual case more so because an order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its forehead retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit has to be conceded - Reading and understanding the words used by the legislature in the literal sense does not also result in manifest absurdity and hence tinkering with the same ought to be avoided at all costs. The word may shall be read as may and shall as shall wherever they are used in Section 148. This is because the words mean what they say. Conclusion - The successive petitions under Section 482 Cr. PC are maintainable if there is a change in circumstances such as a change in law. It emphasized the discretion appellate courts have under Section 148 of the N.I. Act regarding deposit conditions. The impugned order of the High Court dated 18th May 2024 and the Sessions Court s order dated 17th October 2022 stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sessions Court to re-examine the issue of ordering deposit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The judgment addresses the appeal against a High Court decision dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the imposition of a condition to deposit 20% of compensation by the Sessions Court. The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation payment.

Issues Presented and Considered

The core issue is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition under Section 482, Cr. PC, on the grounds that the appellants withdrew the earlier petition without leave to file afresh. Additionally, the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act regarding the mandatory nature of the deposit condition was considered.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework involves Section 482 of the Cr. PC, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. The principle of res judicata does not apply to criminal proceedings, allowing successive petitions under Section 482, Cr. PC, if circumstances change. Section 148 of the N.I. Act allows appellate courts to order a deposit of compensation pending appeal but is interpreted differently in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari cases.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court found that the High Court's dismissal of the subsequent petition was unjustified. The procedural laws for civil and criminal proceedings differ, and the principle of res judicata does not apply to criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that a change in law, as in the Jamboo Bhandari case, constitutes a change in circumstances, allowing a fresh petition under Section 482, Cr. PC.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Court noted the appellants filed a second petition after the Jamboo Bhandari decision, which provided a different interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, allowing discretion to appellate courts regarding the deposit condition.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the interpretation from Jamboo Bhandari, which allows appellate courts discretion in ordering deposits under Section 148 of the N.I. Act. The Court found the High Court erred in dismissing the petition without considering this discretion and the change in legal interpretation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court addressed the competing interpretations of Section 148 from Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari. It favored the latter's view, which allows appellate courts discretion, aligning with the legislative intent of using 'may' and 'shall' in different contexts.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the High Court's decision was unsustainable and remitted the matter to the Sessions Court to reconsider the deposit requirement in light of the Jamboo Bhandari interpretation.

Significant Holdings

Core Principles Established

The Court established that successive petitions under Section 482, Cr. PC, are maintainable if there is a change in circumstances, such as a change in law. It emphasized the discretion appellate courts have under Section 148 of the N.I. Act regarding deposit conditions.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Court set aside the High Court's order and the Sessions Court's order imposing the deposit condition. It remitted the matter to the Sessions Court to reconsider the deposit requirement, allowing it to exercise discretion based on the current legal interpretation.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of remitting the matter for reconsideration, with all points left open for the Sessions Court's determination.