In a recent judgment dated 23 July 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that a second quashing petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not maintainable if the grounds raised were already available during the first petition but were not argued.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Madras High Court order that had allowed a second quashing plea by the accused. The Court stressed that the principle of constructive res judicata applies even to quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC.
“The accused-respondents were not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court raising the aforesaid ground/plea at a later point of time by filing the second quashing petition.” — Justice Sandeep Mehta
Background of the Case
The case stems from a criminal complaint involving properties in Thanjavur. The first quashing petition filed by the accused was dismissed by the Madras High Court in December 2021. Later, the accused filed a second quashing petition in September 2022, based on the same grounds that were previously available but not argued earlier. Surprisingly, the High Court allowed the second petition, which led the complainant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The apex court found that the grounds taken in the second petition were identical to those in the earlier plea and should have been raised during the first hearing. The Court held that the High Court’s order amounted to an impermissible review, thus violating Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits review of its judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors.
“The order passed by the High Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 Cr.P.C. expressly bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.” — Supreme Court
The Court clarified that only a change in circumstances or emergence of new grounds can justify a second quashing petition. In the present case, no such change was shown by the accused.
The judgment also relied on Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP, 2023 to affirm that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to re-litigate matters that could and should have been raised earlier.
The Supreme Court allowed the complainant’s appeal, and the order passed by the Madras High Court in the second petition was set aside. This ruling reinforces that litigants must raise all available grounds at the first opportunity, and misuse of the legal process through repeated petitions is not acceptable.
Case Title: M.C. Ravikumar vs. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR Mr. Tanuj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Md. Ashfaq, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Vinayaga Vignesh I, Adv. Mr. Vasu Kalra, Adv.