Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., held that a second petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of the first petition.

What was the Background of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Case?

• A complaint was filed by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low-Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of public funds by the persons involved.
• The petitioner being the Project Director/Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, at the relevant time, was also implicated.
• The petitioner filed his first petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the Allahabad High Court.
• The Allahabad HC disposed of the application and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order.
• Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application under Section 482 of CrPC praying for quashing of the charge sheet and the cognizance order which was later dismissed by the HC.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC and the Court refused to interfere with the HC order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that even though there is no absolute bar on a second petition under Section 482 of CrPC, such a petition would not be maintainable when the grounds for relief were available to the party at the first instance itself.
• The Court further observed that though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, 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 CrPC., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance.

What is Section 482 of CrPC?

• About:
  • This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
  • This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.
• Purpose:
  • Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.
  • It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:
    • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.
    • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
    • to secure the ends of justice.
• Case Laws:
  • In Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr. (1981), the SC held that the inherent power of the Court could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.(2007), the SC held that when the first petition under Section 482 CrPC was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any, available in law, the HC would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC on being petitioned again and the principle of res judicata would not stand attracted.
  • In Vinod Kumar, IAS. v. Union of India and Ors. (2021), the SC observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC would not bar filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify.