High Court dismissed a second criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings, holding it not maintainable as prior similar petition was dismissed for non-prosecution without change in circumstances.
Quashing of charge sheet and criminal proceedings dismissed; incidental stay application also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:29384 CRL.P No. 4250 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4250 OF 2023 (482)
Between:
Charge Sheet Address R/At No 17, Binni Layout, Attiguppe, Banglore - 40.
Aadhar Card Address:
Digitally signed by BANGALORE MADHAVACHAR VEENA Location: High Court of Karnataka
Anil Kumar Muniswamy S/o. T. Muniswamy No 318, 6th 'A' Cross, Bhuvanagiri, OMBR Layout, Near Water Tank, Banaswadi, Bengaluru North, Kalyana Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 043.
Charge Sheet Address:
R/at No.13, Post Office Road, Venkatarama Layout, Maruti seva Nagar, Bangalore 560 033
Present Address:
R/at No 24, 3rd 'B' Cross, Lalbahaddur Nagar, Kasturinagar, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru - 560 043
…Petitioners
(By Sri. T. Prakash, Advocate)
And:
R/at No.L.R.-14, BDA Row House, Nandini Layout, Bangalore - 96.
…Respondents (By Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, High Court Govt. Pleader for R-1; R-2 - served and un-represented)
NC: 2023:KHC:29384 CRL.P No. 4250 of 2023
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1804/2016 (Crime No.69/2012) of Mahadevapura Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC vide Annexure C and D, pending on the file of the 3rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, so far as these petitioners No.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 & 2) are concerned in the ends of justice.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C."), seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1804/2016 (Crime No.69/2012 of Mahadevapura Police Station), for the offence punishable
NC: 2023:KHC:29384 CRL.P No. 4250 of 2023
under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC"), which is said to be pending on the file of the learned
3rd Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
was noticed that the very same petitioners for the very same prayer, had earlier filed a similar petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No.8488/2016, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the order of this Court dated 09-03-2021. In view of the same, the Court requested the learned counsel for the petitioners to make a submission regarding the maintainability of the present petition which is admittedly a second similar petition by the very same petitioners for the very same relief.
maintainable. In his support, he relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
that, ignoring the bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court which entertained and allowed a second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was filed seeking a review, recall and modify the order dated 20-07-2018, was pleased to allow the petition vide its
order dated 20-08-2018, recalling its earlier order dated 20-07-2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 7 of its order was pleased to observe as follows:
"7. The High Court while dismissing the petition under Section 482 observed that it would be open to the second respondent to pursue his remedies after framing of the charge. In view of the specific bar which is contained in Section 362, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable. Such an application for review or modification could not have been entertained."
Khadkiwala Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another reported in AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3583 ,
even though the first petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be dismissed in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the second similar petition filed by the very same petitioner was rejected on
the ground that, the second similar petition was not maintainable. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case before it was pleased to observe that they were unable to hold that the second application for quashing of the complaint was not maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier application. With the said observation, the impugned order of the High Court, dismissing the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
In the instant case, admittedly, the petition is not the one for review or modification. Thus, the said judgment relied upon by the petitioners would not be of any benefit to them in this petition.
similar petition for the same prayer by the same petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed holding the same as maintainable, however, holding the second petition as maintainable was after observing the change in the circumstance that was brought before the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that, there was a difference between the earlier application and the subsequent one inasmuch as the statutory Form 32 issued
by the Registrar of Companies did not fall for consideration by the Court earlier. Thus, it is considering the change in the circumstance, with a different ground, since the second application was made, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was maintainable.
In the case on hand, admittedly, the previous petition filed by the very same petitioner was not disposed of on its merit, however, by the order dated 09-03-2021, the petition came to be dismissed only for the reason of non-prosecution. In such a case, when the petitioners had an other remedy of getting the restoration of the said order and proceeding with the same petition, there is no reason to entertain the present second similar petition by the very same petitioner for the very same relief, that too, particularly, in the absence of any change in the circumstance or special circumstance. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Khadkiwala's case (supra) also would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners.
NC: 2023:KHC:29384 CRL.P No. 4250 of 2023
stands dismissed as not maintainable.
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2023 for stay does not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same relief is maintainable when the earlier petition was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Whether analogous decisions of the Supreme Court regarding second petitions in Section 482 cases apply where no change in circumstances exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ATUL SHUKLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHERDistinguished¶42
(2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 299
Anil Khadkiwala Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anotherDistinguished¶47
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3583 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Anilkumar S/o. T. Muniswamy
Sri. D. R. Subramanyam
State of Karnataka
Sri. M. N. Prasanna
H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
