Dismissal Of Earlier S.482 CrPC Petition Doesn't Bar Subsequent Petition Filed Due To Change In Law : Supreme Court

Observing that the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to the criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the dismissal of a previous petition does not preclude the filing of a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C if it is prompted by a change in the law. The Court rejected the argument that if the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition is not maintainable. According to the Court, if the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without a liberty to file afresh then it would not be necessary for the litigant to obtain the leave of the Judge who had dismissed the earlier petition prior to filing the subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision which dismissed the subsequent petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. The Appellants were convicted in a cheque bounce matter, where the Sessions Court directed them to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in the trial court for suspension of sentence. The Appellants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court against the Sessions Court's decision. Since, the prevailing law laid down in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S. S. Deswal vs Virender Gandhi (2019) by the Supreme Court bound the High Court which held the condition for deposit in terms of Section 148, N.I. Act as mandatory, the Appellant's counsel withdrew the petition.Close on the heels of the dismissal of the said petition of the appellants, as withdrawn, came the decision of another coordinate bench of the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (2023), where the Co-ordinate bench of the Supreme Court held that an exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. Having regard to Jamboo Bhandari's decision, the appellants applied afresh under Section 482, Cr. PC. This petition has now been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. The sole ground assigned by the High Court is that since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition is not maintainable. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Datta observed: “that the High Court was unjustified in dismissing the subsequent petition on the ground that the appellants had withdrawn the earlier petition without obtaining leave to file afresh and, therefore, the petition under consideration was not maintainable.” The Court held that “the principle of res judicata, traceable in Section 11 of the CPC, does neither apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in the Cr. PC akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC.” Reference was drawn from the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. (2023), where the Court held that there is no blanket rule against filing of successive petitions under section 482, Cr. PC before the high court. It was also held that if such a petition is filed, it must be seen whether there was any change in facts or circumstances, necessitating the filing of such a petition. According to the Court, “change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.” The Court observed that the High Court's stance that the appellants needed the Judge's leave to file a subsequent petition after dismissing the earlier one is untenable because the appellants approached the High Court again only after a change in the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act in Jamboo Bhandari and not on other grounds. “Thus, in our considered opinion, the constricted view taken by High Court to hold that the appellants were required to obtain the leave of the Judge who had dismissed the earlier petition prior to filing the subsequent petition is clearly untenable and not warranted in law. It is noted that the appellants had applied a second time before the High Court only when the law on interpretation of Section 148, N.I. Act was laid down somewhat differently in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and not on any other ground. It was not a review in disguise that the appellants attempted...

Dismissal Of Earlier S.482 CrPC Petition Doesn't Bar Subsequent Petition Filed Due To Change In Law : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags