Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Second Quashing Order: Reinforces Bar on Review under Section 362 CrPC
Introduction:
This criminal appeal challenged a judgment passed by the Madras High Court allowing a second quashing petition filed by the accused, which resulted in the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019. The complaint involved serious charges under Sections 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 r/w 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), relating to fraudulent sale of property documents submitted as loan security.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, engaged in the travel and finance business, had secured loan transactions (2005–2008) by handing over original property documents to the accused.
Despite full repayment of ₹1.65 crore and repeated requests, the original documents were not returned. Instead, a sham sale deed was executed by one of the accused.
After an earlier closure report and rejection of a revision, the appellant filed a new criminal complaint in 2019.
A first quashing petition filed by the accused in 2019 was dismissed by the High Court in 2021.
Six months later, a second quashing petition was filed based on no new grounds and was allowed by the High Court on 13 September 2022.
The appellant challenged this second quashing before the Supreme Court.
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that:
A second quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not maintainable when it is based on grounds already available at the time of the first petition.
The High Court’s order was nothing short of an impermissible review of its earlier order, barred under Section 362 of the CrPC.
The complaint is restored before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
Analysis
The Court reaffirmed:
The finality of judicial orders under Section 362 CrPC, barring any review save for clerical errors.
Successive petitions invoking Section 482 cannot be a backdoor route to reargue failed pleas.
The High Court’s inherent powers must not override express statutory bars.
The ruling fortifies judicial discipline and discourages procedural abuse, especially in criminal litigation involving serious allegations of fraud and breach of trust.
