BHISHAM LAL VERMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

                  [2023] 14 S.C.R. 55 : 2023 INSC 955



                            CASE DETAILS

                        BHISHAM LAL VERMA
                                     v.
           STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
             (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7976 of 2023)
                           OCTOBER 30, 2023
         [C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration : Is a second petition maintainable u/s. 482
Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of
filing of the first petition thereunder.
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – A complaint case was
registered u/ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC r/w. ss. 7 and
13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Petitioner was amongst
the accused named therein – The State Government accorded sanction
to prosecute the petitioner – Upon completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was prepared and cognizance was taken – In 2018, Petitioner filed
petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. and challenged only Government’s sanction
and same was disposed of with liberty to approach Trial Court – In
2022, the petitioner again filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. with prayers to
quash charge-sheet and the cognizance order – Propriety:
      Held: Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a
second petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. 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 u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas
were very much available even at the first instance – Permitting the filing of
successive petitions u/s. 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, by filing one petition after another u/s. 482
56           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose – Such abuse of process
cannot be permitted – In the instant case, the filing of the charge sheet and
the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing
of the first petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to
the sanction order – That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge
sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. [Paras 11 and 12]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

      Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal
vs. Mohan Singh and others (1975) 3 SCC 706; Anil Khadkiwala vs. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) (2019) 17 SCC 294; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhal (2007) 4 SCC 70; Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of India
and others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559; Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and
Chhabi Mukherjee and another (1990) 2 SCC 437: [1990] 1 SCR 788;
Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another (1981) 1 SCC 500: [1981] 2 SCR
48; R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others (2002)
10 SCC 40 – referred to.
     S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan 2006 SCC Online Mad 94 – approved.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.7976 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2023 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No.2014 of 2022.
     Appearances:
    Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Kumar Singh,
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, Abhinav Jaganathan, Ms. Pallavi Baghel, Ms.
Anamika Yadav, Sidharth Shukla, Advs. for the Petitioner.
    S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae), M. P. Parthiban, R.
Sudhakaran, Hari Hara Sudha, Shreyas Kaushal, Advs. for the Respondents.
   BHISHAM LAL VERMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                              57



       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                  ORDER

     SANJAY KUMAR, J.
      1. ‘Is a second petition maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the
first petition thereunder?’
     2. This is the short question that arises for consideration.
     3. As the issue turned on the very maintainability of the case, Mr. S.
Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist the Court and,
with his usual graciousness, he agreed to do so.
      4. We may first note the relevant facts: Complaint dated 23.06.2012
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 herein, being the Project Director/Additional
District Magistrate, Rampur, at the relevant time, was also implicated.
Thereupon, C.C. No. 1280 of 2012 was registered on the file of Police Station
Civil Lines, Rampur, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC
read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
brevity, ‘the Act of 1988’). The petitioner was amongst the accused named
therein.
      5. In exercise of power under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19
of the Act of 1988, by order dated 03.12.2013, the Government of Uttar
Pradesh accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences alleged
under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 471 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Act
of 1988 and any other offences relating thereto. Upon completion of the
investigation, charge sheet dated 30.04.2015 was laid before the learned
Sessions Judge, Rampur. Therein, the petitioner was charged with offences
under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Act
of 1988. By order dated 12.06.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur,
58           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


took cognizance. The case was thereafter taken on file by the Special Court
at Bareilly as Special Case No. 19 of 2016.
      6. Long thereafter, the petitioner filed his first petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., viz., Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018, before the
Allahabad High Court. Therein, he chose to challenge only the Government’s
sanction order dated 03.12.2013. The State opposed the application,
pointing out that a challenge to the sanction could be made before the Trial
Court. Thereupon, the petitioner’s counsel sought liberty to approach the
Trial Court by way of an appropriate application challenging the sanction.
Accepting that plea, the High Court disposed of the application, vide order
dated 15.12.2020, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial
Court and challenge the sanction order. Significantly, at the time of filing
of this first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the charge sheet was very
much on record and the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, had already taken
cognizance.
      7. However, it was only in the year 2022 that the petitioner felt
inspired to file a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., viz., Criminal
Misc. Application No. 2014 of 2022. His prayers therein were to quash the
charge sheet dated 30.04.2015; the cognizance order dated 12.06.2015;
and the proceedings in Special Case No. 19 of 2016, insofar as he was
concerned. This application was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court,
vide order dated 20.02.2023. Therein, the High Court noted that the
petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a limited prayer - to quash the sanction order
dated 30.12.2013. Holding that it was not open to the petitioner to go on
challenging the proceedings one by one and as he had not felt aggrieved by
the charge sheet or the order of cognizance when he had filed the first petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court concluded that the subsequent
petition challenging the same would not be maintainable and dismissed the
application. It is against this order that the petitioner approached this Court
by way of the present case.
     8. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,
learned senior counsel, would argue that a second petition is maintainable
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. He relied on the judgment of this Court in
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs.
    BHISHAM LAL VERMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                 59
                 [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

Mohan Singh and others1. Therein, it was held that a subsequent application
under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, presently
Section 482 Cr.P.C, would be maintainable in changed circumstances. It
was affirmed that a subsequent application, which is not a repeat application
squarely on the same facts and circumstances, would be maintainable. To the
same effect was the more recent decision of this Court in Anil Khadkiwala
vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another2. Earlier, in S.M.S.
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another3, this Court held
that when the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was withdrawn with
liberty to avail remedies, if any, available in law, the High Court would not
be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on being
petitioned again and the principle of res judicata would not stand attracted.
Again, in Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of India and others4, a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C would not bar filing of a subsequent petition thereunder
in case the facts so justify.
      9. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned amicus curiae, would however point out
that entertainment of the second petition in Mohan Singh (supra) was held
permissible as the circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent
petition were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier
one and that was the distinguishing factor which saved the second petition.
He would further point out that, in Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and
Chhabi Mukherjee and another5, this Court cautioned that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to override the
bar of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to Sooraj
Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another6 which 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. He also drew our attention to R.
Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others 7, wherein


1   (1975) 3 SCC 706
2   (2019) 17 SCC 294
3   (2007) 4 SCC 70
4   Writ Petition No. 255 of 2021, decided on 29.06.2021 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559
5   (1990) 2 SCC 437
6   (1981) 1 SCC 500
7   (2002) 10 SCC 401
60            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 28.01.1995
and without mentioning the same, another petition was filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. with a similar prayer. Noting that the second petition was not
made on the strength of anything which had developed after 28.01.1995
but only on the facts which subsisted prior to that date, this Court held that
the second petition was not maintainable, as the High Court did not have
the power to upset the order dated 28.01.1995 which had attained finality.
       10. In S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan8, the Madras High Court
observed that a person who invokes Section 482 Cr.P.C. should honestly
come before the Court raising all the pleas available to him at that point of
time and he is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment pleas. It
was further observed that there may be a change of circumstances during
the course of criminal proceedings which would give scope for the person
aggrieved to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, but when he is
posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he cannot withhold part
of it for the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the same relief.
       11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the
Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that
a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.,
though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance.
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,
by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of
when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.
      12. In the case on hand, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance
thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to the sanction
order. That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the


8    (2006) 1 MWN (Cri) DCC 1 = 2006 SCC Online Mad 94
   BHISHAM LAL VERMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                            61
                [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

cognizance order at a later point of time. The impugned order passed by the
Allahabad High Court holding to this effect is, therefore, incontrovertible
on all counts and does not warrant interference.
     The Special Leave Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
     Before parting with the case, we place on record our appreciation
and gratitude to Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned amicus curiae, for his able and
scholarly assistance.


Headnotes prepared by:                                         SLP dismissed.
Ankit Gyan