Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana 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     

 

Latest Legal News