2025 INSC 888 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022)

M.C. RAVIKUMAR ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

D.S. VELMURUGAN

& ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant appeal has been filed against final

judgment and order dated 13

th September, 2022

1

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras

2

in quashing petition

3 filed by the respondents

herein

4. Vide the impugned order, the High Court

allowed the quashing petition and quashed the

1

Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned order”.

2

Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

3

Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022.

4

Hereinafter, referred to as “accused-respondents”.

2

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

criminal complaint

5 filed by the appellant herein

6

against the accused-respondents for the offences

punishable under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423,

468, 469 read with 34 and 120 of Indian Penal Code,

1860

7 before the learned IX Metropolitan Judicial

Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

Factual Background: -

4. Facts in nutshell, relevant and essential for

disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

4.1. The complainant has been engaged in travels

and finance business for several years. During 2005-

2008, the complainant entered into some loan

transactions with the accused-respondents who were

engaged in the business of money lending. To secure

the said loan transactions, the complainant gave the

original deeds of several of his properties situated at

Thanjavur and Chennai to the accused-respondents.

An agreement of sale came to be executed between C.

Natrajan (respondent No. 2) and the complainant in

5

Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.

6

Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant” or “appellant-complainant.

7

For short “IPC”.

3

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

respect of a flat

8 and a portion of plot

9 situated at

Adyar, Chennai on 25

th April, 2008.

4.2. Thereafter, on 23

rd May, 2008, a tripartite

agreement came to be executed between the

complainant, one R.R. Vasudevan and D.S.

Velmurugan (respondent no. 1). Under the said

agreement, R.R. Vasudevan paid Rs. 79,00,000/- to

respondent No. 1, which was actually payable to the

complainant. Thereafter, the complainant cleared of

the remaining outstanding amount pertaining to the

loan transactions totaling Rs. 1,65,98,000/- and

having made such payment, he requested the

accused-respondents to return the original deeds

given as security against the loan amount. Since the

accused-respondents failed to respond to the

aforesaid request, the complainant was constrained

to issue legal notice dated 30

th August, 2011 to them,

seeking return of the original documents.

4.3. It is alleged that after the receipt of the aforesaid

notice, respondent No. 1 executed a sham sale deed

8

Flat No. 10 having plinth area of 935 sq. ft., First Floor, 2

nd

Main Road,

Rams Flat, Adyar, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai.

9

3/87 undivided share of land measuring larger extent of 4 Grounds and

895 sq. ft. under Survey No. 42 Part, Block No. 36, Kottur Village, Plot No.

126 Part, situated at Old Door No. 83, 2

nd

Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai.

4

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

in respect of the complainant’s property situated at

Thanjavur, which was given as security against the

loan amount. On coming to know of the said

fraudulent transaction, the complainant filed a

complaint on 22

nd November, 2011 with the Crime

Branch, Chennai after procuring orders of the High

Court. The said complaint came to be registered as

Crime No. 193 of 2012. The police filed closure report

in the said case and the same was accepted by Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide order

dated 23

rd September, 2013. The revision petition

10

filed by the complainant was dismissed by the High

Court vide order dated 24

th October, 2013 and the

special leave petition

11 against the said order of the

High Court was dismissed by this Court vide order

dated 7

th January, 2015, with an observation that in

the event, the complainant chose to pursue

appropriate remedies, the observations of the High

Court may not prejudice the same. In pursuance of

the said order of this Court, the complainant filed yet

another Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 before

Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thanjavur against

10

Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 1305 of 2013.

11

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1042 of 2014.

5

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

respondent No. 1 and the co-accused persons.

However, the quashing petition

12 filed by respondent

No. 1 and other co -accused persons seeking

quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 was

allowed by the High Court vide order dated 9

th March,

2020.

4.4. In the meantime, one P. Jothikumar

13 filed Civil

Suit No. 79 of 2018 before the High Court seeking a

money decree to the tune of Rs. 1,24,62,000/- in

respect of the amount allegedly loaned by him to the

complainant. The said suit was filed by exhibiting the

original documents of the flat, which as per the

complainant were actually handed over to the

accused-respondents as security.

4.5. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred

Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 before the IX

Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

against the accused-respondents and P. Jothikumar

(accused No. 4) for the offences punishable under

Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with

34 and 120 of IPC. In the said complaint, summons

12

Criminal Original Petition (MD) Nos. 13228 of 2015 and 19634 of 2016.

13

Accused No. 4 in Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.

6

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

came to be issued against all the accused persons

vide order dated 27

th April, 2019.

4.6. The accused-respondents filed the first

quashing petition

14 before the High Court seeking the

quashing of the aforesaid complaint. The said

petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide

speaking order dated 22

nd December, 2021. The

accused-respondents after waiting for 6 months

preferred a second quashing petition

15 before the

High Court seeking the quashing of the very same

complaint i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019.

4.7. The High Court vide final judgment and order

dated 13

th September, 2022 allowed the second

quashing petition and quashed entire proceedings of

Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 filed by the

appellant-complainant. The said order of High Court

is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by

special leave.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant-

complainant: -

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-complainant, vehemently and fervently

14

Criminal Original Petition No. 14186 of 2019.

15

Supra Note 3.

7

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

argued that the High Court fell in grave error while

allowing the second quashing petition filed by the

accused-respondents which was based on the very

same grounds/pleas which were taken in the first

quashing petition. He urged that there was no change

in circumstances and there existed no new ground

for entertaining the second quashing petition.

6. Learned counsel urged that the impugned order

tantamounts to review of the previous order passed

by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court which is

impermissible in view of the bar prescribed under

Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

16

(Corresponding to Section 403 of Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

17). He contended that the

High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 CrPC (Corresponding to Section

528 BNSS) cannot be allowed to review an earlier

order as the same is expressly barred by Section 362

CrPC.

On these grounds, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant-complainant implored this

16

For short “CrPC”.

17

For short “BNSS”.

8

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

Court to accept the appeal and set aside the

impugned order passed by the High Court.

Submissions on behalf of the accused -

respondents: -

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the accused-respondents vehemently and fervently

opposed the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the complainant. He urged that the High

Court has rightly quashed the criminal complaint

initiated by the complainant by adverting to the fact

that there existed change in circumstances since a

similar complaint filed by the complainant in respect

of property situated at Thanjavur already stands

quashed. He urged that the present case is a classic

example of abuse of criminal machinery by the

complainant.

8. Learned counsel argued that the impugned

order passed by the High Court does not amount to

review of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench

in the first quashing petition, since the second

quashing petition was filed raising different

grounds/pleas which were not effectively raised in

the first quashing petition. He urged that the High

9

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

Court has the power to exercise its inherent

jurisdiction at any stage of criminal proceedings in

order to prevent abuse of law and manifest injustice

and exercise of such power cannot be termed to be in

violation of the provisions of Section 362 CrPC.

9. He lastly urged that the inter se dispute between

the parties is purely civil in nature and the admitted

allegations can in no circumstance give rise to

criminal prosecution. The criminal proceedings have

been initiated against the accused-respondents with

the sole intent of harassing them.

On these grounds, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of accused-respondents urged that the

order passed by the High Court is unassailable in law

as well as facts and implored the Court to dismiss the

appeal.

Discussion and Analysis: -

10. We have heard the submissions advanced at the

bar and have gone through the impugned order and

material placed on record.

11. The short question that arises for our

consideration is “Whether a second quashing petition

under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on

10

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised

even at the time of filing/decision of the first

quashing petition?”

12. At the outset, we may like to note that the

submission 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.

13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that

it is not open to an accused person to raise one plea

after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482

11

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available

to him even at the first instance. We may hasten to

add that there is no sweeping rule to the effect that a

second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is

not maintainable and its maintainability will depend

on the facts and circumstances of each case.

However, the onus to show that there arose a change

in circumstances warranting entertainment of a

subsequent quashing petition would be on the person

filing the said petition. In this regard, we may

gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court

in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP &

Anr.

18, which are extracted below for ready

reference:-

“11. …… 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

18

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399.

12

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

petition after another under Section 482

Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause

therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot

be permitted.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. 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.

15. This Court has time and again held that the

High Courts while exercising their inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override

a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC,

i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to

review its own decision under the purported exercise

13

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

of its inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid

conclusion, we may gainfully refer to the observations

made by this Court in the case of Simrikhia v.

Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and

Anr.

19, the relevant portions whereof are quoted

below for ease of reference:

“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of

Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh , (1975) 3 SCC

706, this Court held that Section 561A preserves

the inherent power of the High Court to make

such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of

the process of the Court or to secure the ends of

justice and the High Court must therefore

exercise its inherent powers having regard to the

situation prevailing at the particular point of

time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to

be invoked. In that case the facts and

circumstances obtaining at the time of the

subsequent application were clearly different

from what they were at the time of the earlier

application. The question as to the scope and

ambit of the inherent power of the High Court

vis-a-vis an earlier order made by it was,

therefore, not concluded by this decision.

7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

cannot be invoked to override bar of review

u/s 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v.

Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 50 that the inherent

power of the Court cannot be exercised for

doing that which is specifically prohibited by

the Code. The law is therefore clear that the

inherent power cannot be exercised for doing

that which cannot be done on account of the

bar under other provisions of the Code. The

19

(1990) 2 SCC 437.

14

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

court is not empowered to review its own

decision under the purported exercise of

inherent power. We find that the impugned

order in this case is in effect one reviewing the

earlier order on a reconsideration of the same

materials. The High Court has grievously erred

in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any

compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at

that stage.”

(Emphasis supplied)

16. 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 9

th 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.

17. As an upshot of the above discussion, we have

no hesitation in holding that the impugned order

passed by the High Court is unjustified on the face of

15

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12715 of 2022

the record and cannot be affirmed . Hence, the

impugned order dated 13

th September, 2022 passed

by the High Court in Criminal Original Petition No.

16241 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. As a result,

thereof, the Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019

filed by the appellant-complainant against the

accused-respondents is restored to the file of the

learned IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai.

18. Needless to say, that all the defences available

to the accused-respondents shall remain open to be

raised before the appropriate forum at the proper

stage without being prejudiced by this order or the

orders passed by the High Court.

19. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby

allowed.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 23, 2025.