BHISHAM LAL VERMA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 55 : 2023 INSC 955
CASE DETAILS
BHISHAM LAL VERMA
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7976 of 2023)
OCTOBER 30, 2023
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Is a second petition maintainable u/s. 482 
Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of 
ﬁ ling of the ﬁ rst petition thereunder.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – A complaint case was 
registered u/ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC r/w. ss. 7 and 
13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Petitioner was amongst 
the accused named therein – The State Government accorded sanction 
to prosecute the petitioner – Upon completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was prepared and cognizance was taken – In 2018, Petitioner ﬁ led 
petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. and challenged only Government’s sanction 
and same was disposed of with liberty to approach Trial Court – In 
2022, the petitioner again ﬁ led petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. with prayers to 
quash charge-sheet and the cognizance order – Propriety:
Held: Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a 
second petition u/s. 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 u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas 
were very much available even at the ﬁ rst instance – Permitting the ﬁ ling of 
successive petitions u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an 
ingenious accused to eﬀ ectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his 
own interest and convenience, by ﬁ ling one petition after another u/s. 482 
56  
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose – Such abuse of process 
cannot be permitted – In the instant case, the ﬁ ling of the charge sheet and 
the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the ﬁ ling 
of the ﬁ rst petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to 
the sanction order – That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again 
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge 
sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. [Paras 11 and 12]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES 
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Aﬀ airs, West Bengal 
vs. Mohan Singh and others (1975) 3 SCC 706; Anil Khadkiwala vs. State 
(Government of NCT of Delhi) (2019) 17 SCC 294; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals 
Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhal (2007) 4 SCC 70; Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of India 
and others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559; Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and 
Chhabi Mukherjee and another (1990) 2 SCC 437: [1990] 1 SCR 788; 
Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another (1981) 1 SCC 500: [1981] 2 SCR 
48; R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others (2002) 
10 SCC 40 – referred to.
S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan 2006 SCC Online Mad 94 – approved.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
(Crl.) No.7976 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2023 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No.2014 of 2022.
Appearances:
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Kumar Singh, 
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, Abhinav Jaganathan, Ms. Pallavi Baghel, Ms. 
Anamika Yadav, Sidharth Shukla, Advs. for the Petitioner.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae), M. P. Parthiban, R. 
Sudhakaran, Hari Hara Sudha, Shreyas Kaushal, Advs. for the Respondents.
57
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. ‘Is a second petition maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 
grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of ﬁ ling of the 
ﬁ rst petition thereunder?’
2. This is the short question that arises for consideration.
3. As the issue turned on the very maintainability of the case, Mr. S. 
Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist the Court and, 
with his usual graciousness, he agreed to do so. 
4. We may ﬁ rst note the relevant facts: Complaint dated 23.06.2012 
was ﬁ led by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar 
Pradesh, before the Station House Oﬃ  cer, Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, 
alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low 
Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of publ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.