CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones

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     

 

Latest Legal News