Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that the principle of res judicata does not strictly apply to criminal proceedings, allowing a subsequent Section 482 CrPC petition if prompted by a change in law. It held that withdrawing an earlier petition without liberty to refile does not bar filing a new petition under changed legal circumstances. This ruling came in an appeal against a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision dismissing a subsequent petition in a cheque bounce case. 

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held in the matter of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr 

What was the Background of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr? 

• Muskan Enterprises and its proprietor were convicted in a cheque bounce case by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amloh, District Fatehgarh. 
• The conviction included:  
  • 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the proprietor 
  • Compensation of Rs. 74,00,000 (double the cheque amount) to be paid to the complainant 
  • The convicted parties appealed to the Sessions Court, Fatehgarh Sahib. 
• The Sessions Court:  
  • Admitted their appeal 
  • Suspended the sentence until the appeal was decided 
  • Granted bail to the proprietor 
  • Ordered them to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days 
  • Allowed the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount with an undertaking to return it if the appeal succeeded 
• The appellants challenged this 20% deposit condition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a Section 482 CrPC petition. 
• At that time, the Supreme Court's Surinder Singh Deswal case (2019) was the governing precedent, which made such deposits mandatory. 
  • Due to this binding precedent, the appellants withdrew their petition from the High Court. 
• Subsequently, a new Supreme Court judgment (Jamboo Bhandari case, 2023) modified the interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 
• Based on this change in law, the appellants filed a fresh Section 482 petition before the High Court. 
• The High Court dismissed this second petition solely because the earlier petition had been withdrawn without obtaining liberty to file afresh. 
• The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging this dismissal by the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court erred in applying civil procedure principles to a criminal matter by insisting on obtaining leave before filing a fresh petition, as the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of CPC is not applicable to criminal proceedings. 
• Section 482 of CrPC preserves the inherent powers of High Courts to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice, which cannot be constrained by procedural requirements of civil law. 
• A material change in law constitutes valid grounds for filing a subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC, even if the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining express leave to file afresh. 
• The Court distinguished between a review petition and a fresh petition based on changed law, noting that the appellants' subsequent petition was not a review in disguise but an attempt to seek application of the current legal position. 
• Regarding Section 148 of NI Act, the Court observed that the legislature's deliberate use of both 'may' and 'shall' in different contexts within the same section indicates a clear legislative intent to grant discretionary power to appellate courts in ordering deposits. 
• The Court observed that while appellate courts normally should order deposits, they retain discretion in exceptional cases to dispense with the deposit requirement, provided reasons are recorded for such deviation. 
• When two coordinate benches express divergent views (as in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari), the latter judgment, having considered the earlier one, becomes the prevailing law until a larger bench decides otherwise. 

What is Res Judicata? 

• Res judicata, meaning "a matter adjudged," is fundamentally codified under Section 11 of CPC and is governed by three maxims:  
  • No person should be vexed twice for same cause, litigation must have finality, and judicial decisions must be accepted as correct. 
• For res judicata to apply, five essential elements must coexist:  
  • Matter in issue must be identical 
  • Parties must be the same 
  • Parties must be litigating under same title 
  • Previous court must have had competent jurisdiction 
  • Matter must have been heard and finally decided 
• In criminal proceedings, particularly under Section 138 of NI Act, res judicata has limited application - while technical dismissals don't create a bar, decisions on merits after full trial invoke Section 300 CrPC's protection against double jeopardy. 
• In divorce cases, res judicata's application focuses on the cause of action rather than the relief sought - findings in one matrimonial proceeding (like restitution suit) can bar contradictory claims in subsequent proceedings (like divorce suit). 
• The doctrine serves dual purposes - preventing multiplicity of proceedings involving same matter while protecting parties from facing repeated litigation over issues already decided by competent courts. 

What are the Differences Between Section 482 of CrPC, Section 528 of BNSS and Section 151 of CPC? 

Note: Section 528 BNSS is the successor to Section 482 CrPC under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, maintaining similar principles with updates for contemporary needs. 

 Case Referred By Court  

• Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S. S. Deswal vs Virender Gandhi (2019) 
  • Held that the condition for deposit under Section 148 of NI Act was mandatory 
  • This was the governing precedent when appellants first approached High Court 
• Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) 
  • Held that Section 148 should be given purposive interpretation 
  • Established that appellate courts can make exceptions to 20% deposit requirement in justified cases 
  • Reasons must be specifically recorded for such exceptions 
  • This judgment modified the strict mandatory interpretation in Surinder Singh Deswal 
• S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2007) 
  • Established that High Courts retain inherent power to decide successive petitions under Section 482 
  • Confirmed that res judicata principle does not limit this power 
• Devendra v. State of U.P. (2009) 
  • Reiterated that res judicata principle has no application in criminal proceedings 
• Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. (2023) 
  • Held there is no blanket ban against filing successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC 
  • Established that changes in facts or circumstances can justify filing of subsequent petitions 
  • Court must examine if such changes necessitated the fresh petition