23 July 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of M.C. Ravikumar v/s D.S. Velmurugan & Others, the Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras that had quashed a criminal complaint against respondents in a financial dispute. The Supreme Court's decision primarily hinges on the impermissibility of filing a second quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on grounds that were already available or adjudicated in a prior petition, absent a material change in circumstances.

The case originated from a series of loan transactions between the appellant (complainant), engaged in travel and finance, and the accused-respondents, who were in the money-lending business, between 2005 and 2008. The appellant had provided original property deeds as security for these loans. After repaying the loans, the appellant sought the return of his deeds. However, one of the respondents allegedly executed a fraudulent sale deed for a Thanjavur property that was part of the security. This led to a series of legal actions, including a police complaint (later closed), a criminal complaint that was quashed by the High Court, and a civil suit filed by a third party exhibiting the original property documents, which the appellant claimed were still with the respondents.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a criminal complaint (No. 1828 of 2019) against the accused-respondents and another individual, alleging offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery (Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with 34 and 120 of IPC). Summons were issued to the accused. The accused-respondents initially filed a quashing petition against this complaint, which the High Court dismissed in December 2021. However, six months later, they filed a second quashing petition for the very same complaint, which the High Court allowed in September 2022, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant's counsel vigorously argued that the High Court erred in entertaining the second quashing petition, as there was no change in circumstances or new grounds that were not available during the first petition. It was contended that this amounted to an impermissible review of a co-ordinate bench's previous order, which is barred by Section 362 CrPC.

Conversely, the counsel for the accused-respondents argued that the High Court rightly quashed the complaint due to a "change in circumstances," citing the quashing of a similar complaint related to a different property. They maintained that the second petition presented different grounds and that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process, arguing the dispute was purely civil in nature.

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, sided with the appellant. The Court observed that the argument of "new grounds/pleas" in the second petition was untenable, as all asserted grounds were available during the first petition's adjudication. While acknowledging that there's no blanket rule against a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the onus is on the petitioner to demonstrate a material change in circumstances. Citing its own precedent in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP & Anr., the Court emphasized that allowing successive petitions on pre-existing grounds would constitute an abuse of the legal process.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the High Court's order allowing the second quashing petition amounted to a "plain and simple review" of its earlier order, which is expressly barred by Section 362 CrPC. The Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to override specific statutory bars, including the prohibition against reviewing one's own decision. The fact that another similar complaint was quashed earlier was an event that occurred before the dismissal of the first quashing petition and therefore did not constitute a "new circumstance" warranting a second petition.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's order dated September 13, 2022, thereby restoring Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 to the file of the IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The Court clarified that all defenses available to the accused-respondents remain open to be raised at the appropriate stage before the trial court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Indian Penal Code, 1860