The division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court have determined that a second petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint is not maintainable when it is based on grounds that were already available at the time of filing the first petition. Entertaining such a second petition,under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), effectively amounts to a review of a prior decision by a coordinate bench of the High Court and this course of action is expressly barred under Section 362 of the CrPC.

This section prohibits courts from reviewing or altering final orders except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors.

The case arose from a financial dispute between a businessman(the complainant) running a business in travels and finance and the respondents, who were moneylenders. Between 2005 and 2008, the complainant availed loans by handing over original title deeds of properties located in Thanjavur and Chennai.

In 2008, following a sale agreement and a tripartite arrangement, ₹2.44 crore was settled. When the accused failed to return the documents, a legal notice was issued. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 allegedly executed a fraudulent sale deed for the Thanjavur property, prompting a police complaint in 2011 with the Crime Branch, Chennai after procuring orders of the High Court.

The police later filed a closure report in 2013. After dismissal of the complainant’s revision petition and special leave petition (SLP), a criminal complaint was filed, which was quashed in 2020.

Later, in 2018, a third party filed a civil suit and produced the same property documents, prompting the complainant to file another criminal complaint. Although the accused’s first petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash this complaint was dismissed in 2021, a second petition, filed on similar grounds was allowed by the High Court in 2022, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the second quashing petition was based on identical grounds already rejected in the first petition and that no subsequent change in circumstances justified a fresh petition.

He contended that the High Court’s acceptance of the second petition amounted to an impermissible review, in clear violation of Section 362 CrPC, and that such a practice erodes judicial discipline and consistency.

In response, counsel for the accused-respondents defended the High Court’s order, claiming that the earlier quashing of the Thanjavur complaint constituted a change in circumstance. He also argued that the dispute was civil in nature but criminal proceedings were initiated merely to harass the accused.

After examining the facts and submissions of the parties, the Supreme Court framed the central question for consideration:

Whether a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised even at the time of filing/decision of the first quashing petition?

In response, the Court categorically rejected the submissions of the accused-respondents, holding that the alleged "new ground"—pertaining to the earlier complaint concerning the Thanjavur property—had already been available at the time of the first quashing petition.

“At the outset, we may like to note that thesubmission advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the second quashing petition came to be filed based on new grounds/pleas, is not tenable on the face of it. From the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the second quashing petition raised no such grounds/pleas which were unavailable to the accused-respondents at the time of adjudication of the first quashing petition. The failure of the accused-respondents to raise a pertinent ground/plea which was tangibly available to them at the time of adjudication of the first quashing petition can in no circumstance grant a right to the said accused persons to file a subsequent quashing petition as it would amount to seeking review on pre-existing material.” the court stated.

The Bench emphasized that although the filing of a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not completely prohibited, it must be based on a demonstrable change in circumstances. In this case, however, no such change was established. The Court further reiterated that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised in a manner that overrides the express bar under Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits the review of final judgments or orders except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

“Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court in the second quashing petition amounted to review (plain and simple) of the earlier order passed by the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition, since there was admittedly no change in circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became available to the accused-respondents, after passing of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition. The order passed by the High Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.” the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court held that the accused were not entitled to repeatedly invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court based on facts that were already in existence.

“In the instant case, the quashing by the High Court of a similar complaint, i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant against the accused-respondents in respect of properties situated at Thanjavur vide order dated 9th March, 2020 was an event that happened well before the dismissal of the first quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and the said ground/plea was manifestly available to the accused-respondents while seeking adjudication of the first quashing petition. That being the situation, 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.” the Court held.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 13 September 2022, and restored Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 to the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

It further clarified that all legal defences would remain open to the accused at the appropriate stage.

Case Details: M.C. Ravikumar vs. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors., Crl.A. No. 3122 / 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR Mr. Tanuj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Md. Ashfaq, Adv.

Advocate for the Respondent: 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.