Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Successive Petitions Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Not Allowed to Stall Proceedings: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice SANJAY KUMAR, ruled against the petitioner Bhisham Lal Verma in the case against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court clarified the limitations on filing successive petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The Court unequivocally stated, “Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience.”

The petitioner, Bhisham Lal Verma, who was implicated in a corruption case related to the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme, had filed a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The first petition had challenged only the Government’s sanction order, while the second petition aimed to quash the charge sheet and the cognizance order.

Justice SANJAY KUMAR observed, “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 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance.”

Relying on previous rulings and aided by Mr. S. Nagamuthu as the learned amicus curiae, the Court concluded that the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court was “incontrovertible on all counts and does not warrant interference.”

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, setting a precedent for future cases involving multiple petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Before concluding, the Court also appreciated the scholarly assistance provided by Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned amicus curiae, in this case.

This decision highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring that legal processes are not manipulated to delay justice.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2023

Bhisham Lal Verma VS State of Uttar Pradesh and another     

 

Similar News