Grounds 'Abandoned' At The Time Of First Quashing Petition Can't Be Exhumed To Prop Up Subsequent Plea: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that a second quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC/ BNSS 528 is neither maintainable nor entertainable unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance and the grounds which were manifestly available at the time of first plea cannot be exhumed later to prop up a second petition.Justice M Nagaprasanna said:"The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition...Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.”The court held thus while dismissing a petition filed by G Satyanarayana Varma, who had approached the court for quashing criminal proceedings registered for offences under IPC Sections 120B(criminal conspiracy), 409, 420(cheating), 467(forgery) among others and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.On the complaint filed by General Manager of Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama, it was alleged that on 19-02-2024, an account was opened in Union Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch, in the name of Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishishta Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited.On 23-05-2024, the Corporation's CEO questioned the Bank's officers about transfers.Then the transfer of ₹5 crore was immediately restored into Corporation's account. A complaint was registered by the Corporation before the police alleging gross irregularities and misappropriation by the Bank's employees. On 11-06-2024 the IO noticing the fact that certain amounts have emanated or dropped into the account of the petitioner, approached the petitioner at 11.30 p.m. at Hyderabad and takes him into custody by undertaking search of the house, on search and seizure warrant. The police then approached the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad seeking a transit warrant to bring him to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bengaluru. This came to be rejected. However, the police brought him to Bengaluru and he was remanded to custody. The petitioner challenged his arrest before the High Court. A coordinate Bench in its order dated 12-06-2025 dismissed the petition challenging arrest, which became final. A week after dismissal of the petition, the petitioner moved the present plea seeking quashing of the entire proceedings inter alia, seeking the relief that was already sought in the aforesaid petition. It was argued that the jurisdictional Magistrate has declined to grant a transit warrant. When the transit warrant was declined, close to 48 hours the petitioner was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bangalore. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner became illegal. It was contended that the petitioner was neither provided with grounds of arrest nor the prosecution had a transit warrant to transport the petitioner to Bengaluru from Hyderabad. The State opposed the plea submitting that the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet and now the petitioner is accused No.1, the key conspirator of largescale misappropriation of funds of the Corporation which runs to the tune of ₹188 crores. Moreover, the petitioner has urged these very grounds before the coordinate Bench in the aforementioned writ petition which came to be dismissed. The dismissal of it has become final. Now on the ground of alleged illegal arrest and non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, the petitioner is again before this Court.FindingsThe bench noted that it is an admitted fact that the present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC which was the same provision that was invoked when filing the earlier petition (against arrest). On going through the records and prayers made in the earlier petition the court said: “The petition preferred by the petitioner which comes to be rejected by the coordinate Bench has no difference with the subject petition. There is no iota of change of circumstance for the petitioner to be permitted to file a second petition. The second petition is admittedly preferred adding a ground with regard to his arrest being illegal from 11-06-2024 till he was remanded to police custody under the jurisdiction of Bengaluru, all on the score that the transit warrant was returned.” It added “This is a ground that was available to the petitioner at the time when he had filed the earlier petition. What was projected in the earlier petition, though filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was on grounds of arrest. That fails. The second petition is preferred on an altogether new ground that his arrest was illegal, as the transit warrant had been returned.” It said that the earlier petition was preferred on 12-05 2025 and the arrest of the petitioner was on...

Grounds 'Abandoned' At The Time Of First Quashing Petition Can't Be Exhumed To Prop Up Subsequent Plea: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Grounds 'Abandoned' At The Time Of First Quashing Petition Can't Be Exhumed To Prop Up Subsequent Plea: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers