-
by sayum
07 July 2026 3:12 PM
“What cannot be done directly under Section 362 CrPC, cannot be achieved indirectly through a fresh petition under Section 482.” — Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Second Quashing Order as Review in Disguise; Restores Criminal Complaint Alleging Fraud, Forgery, and Criminal Breach of Trust.
In a significant judgment Supreme Court held that successive petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be used to review earlier High Court orders, especially when no new grounds or change in circumstances exist.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madras High Court's order dated 13.09.2022 which had quashed a criminal complaint—Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019—filed against the respondents alleging serious offences under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC.
“The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to override the statutory bar against review contained in Section 362 CrPC.” [Para 15]
“Second Quashing Petition Without New Grounds Is Nothing But a Review in Disguise”: Court Warns Against Abuse of Process
The Court took strong exception to the fact that the respondents had already filed and lost a quashing petition in 2021, and yet approached the High Court again in 2022 on the same facts and same complaint, resulting in a contrary decision.
“From the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the second quashing petition raised no such grounds/pleas which were unavailable to the accused-respondents at the time of adjudication of the first petition.” [Para 12]
Referring to its judgment in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated:
“Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC would allow an ingenious accused to stall criminal proceedings indefinitely. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.” [Para 13]
“High Court’s Second Order Violates Section 362 CrPC”: No Power to Review Final Judgment Except to Correct Clerical Errors
The Bench categorically held that the High Court’s 2022 order amounted to a review of its earlier 2021 decision, which is barred under Section 362 of the CrPC.
“The High Court has grievously erred… The impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials.” [Para 15]
Relying on Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, the Court emphasized:
“The law is clear: inherent powers cannot be used for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code.”
It observed that the second petition did not introduce any new factual development or legal argument that could justify fresh invocation of Section 482 powers.
“No Change in Circumstance, No New Cause of Action”: Supreme Court Rejects Respondents’ Defence
The respondents claimed that the second petition was justified because a similar complaint related to Thanjavur property had been quashed in 2020. But the Court pointed out that this fact was already known at the time of the first quashing petition in 2021.
“That being the situation, the accused-respondents were not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court… by filing the second quashing petition.” [Para 16]
Accordingly, the High Court’s second order was held to be unsustainable in law.
Complaint Alleging Document Misuse and Fraud to Be Tried: All Accused Defences Reserved
The case stemmed from allegations that the complainant, a businessman engaged in travel and finance, had secured loans from the accused and handed over original property documents as security. When the loans were repaid, the documents were not returned. Instead, fraudulent sale deeds were allegedly executed on the complainant’s properties.
While the police closed the original FIR and the High Court quashed an earlier related complaint, the new complaint of 2019 alleged continued use of forged documents in a civil suit—a fact discovered only later.
The Supreme Court, however, did not go into the merits of the complaint, making it clear:
“All the defences available to the accused-respondents shall remain open to be raised before the appropriate forum at the proper stage.” [Para 18]
The judgment is a powerful reiteration of two core principles of criminal jurisprudence:
Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not unlimited and must be exercised within the framework of the Code.
Review of a final order is barred under Section 362 CrPC, and cannot be achieved indirectly through repeat petitions.
“Successive quashing petitions on identical grounds are a gross misuse of judicial process. What cannot be done directly under review cannot be done indirectly through inherent powers.”
By restoring the criminal complaint to trial, the Court has also upheld the complainant’s right to seek adjudication of serious allegations of cheating, forgery, and breach of trust.
Date of Decision: July 23, 2025
