Bhishan Lal Verma V/S The State of U.P on 30 October 2023 

CITATION	SLP Crl No. 7976 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT	30th October 2023
COURT	Supreme Court of India
PETITIONER	Bhisham Lal Verma
RESPONDENT	State of UP & another
BENCH	CT. Ravi Kumar, Sanjay Kumar

INTRODUCTION

In this case complaint was filled against the petitioner being the project Director ,in which  arguing that  irregularities in the construction of toilet and embezzlement of public fund.

The Petitioner filed his first petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C in the Allahabad High Court and Court disposed off the application subsequently the petitioner filed another application for quashing of the charge sheet and the cognizance order.

 The High Court also dismissed this order. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In this Case a Director of State urban Development Authority Uttar Pradesh filed a complaint ,before the Station House officer, Police Station, Kotwali Rampur.

2. He alleged that, under the low-cost sanitation scheme, irregularities in the construction of toilets takes place and also embezzlement of public funds by the persons involved.

3. Here the Petitioner being the Project Director/AdditionalDistrict Magistrate, Rampur at the relevant time was also implicated. After Investigation Petitioner also charged with offences under Section  409,420,467,671 IPC & Section 7 and 13 of the Act of 1988.

4. After a very  longtime Petitioner  filed his first Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C before the Allahabad High Court. 

5. The State opposed the application, thereafter the Petitioner’s Council bought liberty to approach the Trail Court and the HC disposed of the application.
6. After that, Petitioner filed a second Petition under Section 482 CRPC praying for quashing the charge sheet and the cognizance order. Later this application way dismissed by Allahabad HC and stated that the subsequent Petition Challenging the same would not be maintainable.

7. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an appeal before The Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is a second Petition maintainable under Section 482 CrPC?

2. Whether the Court allowed a second Petition on the same facts or circumstances or not.?

3. The Supreme Court gives Permission to Petitioner to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

PETITIONER CONTENTIONS 

1. On behalf of the Petitioner, learned senior counsel, argued that a second Petition is maintainable under section 482.

2. He stated the case Superintendent & Remembrancer of legal Affairs, West Bengal v/s Mohan Singh & others. Therein, it was held that subsequent application would be maintainable in changed circumstances.

3. Petitioner contended that in the case, Anil Khadkiwala v/s State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another & SMS. Pharmaceuticals ltd. v/s Neeta Bhutt and another, in this court held that if first Petition under 483 CrPC was withdrawn then HC would not be denied its inherent Jurisdiction under section 482 CRPC on being another Petition.

4. Lastly, stated the case, Vinod kumar IAS v/s UOI & others in which 3 Judge Bench of Supreme Court observed that section 482 CRPC would not bare filing of subsequent Petition if that facts so justify.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION

1. Respondent contended that the second petition in Mohan Singh was held permissible only because the circumstances in the subsequent petition were clearly different from earlier petition.

2. He further contended that in simrikhia v/s Dolley, writ Petition & Mukerjee & Chabbi Mukherjee and other 5, the SC cautioned that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to override, section 362 of Cr.P.C.

3. He also drew attention in a case R. Annapuran v/s Ramddugu Annantha Krishna sustry & other, in which the court held that second Petition was not maintainable as the High Court  did not have power to upset the previous order.
4. In Madan Kumar v/s K Arjuna the Madras High Court observed that a person who invokes section 482 Cr.P.C should honestly come before that court and he has not right to approach the court with installment pleas.
5. Further Observed that if in the Petition, circumstances are changed then it gives scope to the person to invoke the aggrieved, inherent jurisdiction. But if he posted same factor & circumstances if ease than he cannot seek for any relief.

COURT DECISION 

Justice CT Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar agree with the observations of the madras High Court and clear that there is no blanket reduce that 4 second Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C would not lie any situation and it would depend upon the fact circumstances of the case and raising one please after the other by aggrieved person to invoking jurisdiction of the High Court cannot permitted.

The Bench of C.T Ravikumar & Sanjay Kumar dismissed the special leave Petition and stated that the Petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of HC in relation to charge sheet and the cognizance order.

CONCLUSION

A Bench of Justice C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar after hearing all the contention they come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court is inconvertible and there is no need for interference.

They dismissed the Special leave petition because the petitioner is not open to raise a second petition on the same facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner does not have liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court  in relation to cognizance & Charge sheet.

Written by Anamika Singha an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.