30 Oct 2023 3:50 PM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (30th October) held that a second petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition would not be maintainable.
A bench of Justice C T Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that even though there is no absolute bar on a second petition under S. 482, such a petition would not be maintainable when the grounds for relief were available to the party at the first instance itself.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court that had dismissed the second S. 482 application of the appellant.
According to the facts of the case, a complaint was filed by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of public funds by the persons involved. In this regard, the Appellant was facing charges under the Indian Penal Code,1860 and under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Appellant first filed a first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein the order of the Uttar Pradesh government according sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences alleged was challenged. The High Court disposed of this application granting liberty to the Appellant to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order.
Subsequently, the Appellant filed another application under S. 482 CrPC praying for quashing of the charge sheet and the cognizance order. This was dismissed by the High Court holding that it was not open to the petitioner to go on challenging the proceedings one by one.
The Apex Court refused to interfere with the High Court order, observing that at the time of filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the charge sheet was already on record and the Sessions Judge had already taken cognizance. However, the Appellant had not challenged it at the first instance.
“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 Cr.P.C., 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,” the Apex Court concluded.
Sr. Adv. S. Nagamuthu was the amicus curiae in the matter.
Sr. Adv. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel appeared for the Petitioner.
Case Title: Bhisham Lal Verma V. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7976 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 935