“One Shot at Quash” – Supreme Court Bars Successive Section 482 Petitions on Pre-Existing Grounds

1. Introduction

In M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors. (2025 INSC 888) the Supreme Court of India has emphatically ruled that an accused cannot file a second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) to quash criminal proceedings on grounds that were already available when an earlier quashing petition was decided. The Court also clarified that entertaining such a petition would amount to an impermissible review barred by Section 362 CrPC.

The decision arose out of a prolonged property-related dispute, where the respondents—having failed in their first quashing attempt—waited six months and re-approached the Madras High Court with a “second bite” at quash. The High Court allowed the second petition; the complainant appealed, resulting in the present landmark pronouncement.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (Mehta, J. concurring with Nath, J.) allowed the appeal, set aside the Madras High Court’s order dated 13 September 2022, and restored Criminal Complaint No. 1828/2019 to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
Key Holding: A second petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable only if it is based on new circumstances or grounds that were not available at the time of the first petition. Otherwise, it is tantamount to a review, explicitly barred by Section 362 CrPC.
The Court observed that none of the grounds raised in the second quashing petition were unavailable earlier; hence, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
Reliance was placed on precedents such as Bhisham Lal Verma, Simrikhia, and Mohan Singh.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Significance

Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399
Held that though no blanket prohibition exists against a second Section 482 petition, successive petitions on the same material amount to abuse of process.
Influence: Provided direct textual support for denying an “ingenious” accused repeated innings before the High Court.
Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437
Laid down that inherent powers cannot be exercised to circumvent the express bar under Section 362.
Influence: Enabled the Court to label the High Court’s order as a “plain and simple review.”
Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706
Emphasised that inherent powers are contextual and cannot override the Code.
Influence: Reinforced the principle that Section 482 is a residual power, not a competing one.
Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 50
Reiterated that courts cannot do indirectly what the Code prohibits directly.
Influence: Cemented the statutory bar against revisiting final orders.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The reasoning unfolds through four logical steps:

Identification of Core Issue: Whether the second Section 482 petition, founded on grounds already available during the first petition, is maintainable.
Factual Comparison: A textual scrutiny of both quashing petitions revealed that the “new” ground (quashing of a similar complaint concerning Thanjavur property) pre-dated the first petition and could have been pleaded earlier.
Statutory Overlay – Section 362 vs. 482: The Court distinguished “inherent jurisdiction” from “review jurisdiction.” • Section 362 mandates that no court, once it has signed its judgment or final order, shall alter or review the same except for clerical errors. • Section 482 preserves inherent powers. However, Simrikhia and others hold that Section 482 cannot be used to do what Section 362 forbids. Allowing the second petition would therefore indirectly permit a review.
Policy Consideration – Abuse of Process: Evoking Bhisham Lal Verma, the Court reasoned that permitting serial petitions would weaponise procedure, letting an “ingenious” accused delay trials ad infinitum, eroding faith in criminal justice.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Predictable Procedural Finality: High Courts now have clearer guidance that they cannot entertain copy-cat Section 482 petitions. Litigants get one effective opportunity; thereafter, only genuinely new developments can justify re-approach.
Check on Forum Shopping: The judgment discourages parties from waiting strategically and filing repetitive petitions before different coordinate benches.
BNSS Alignment: The Court incidentally references the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), signalling continuity of this doctrine in the re-codified criminal procedure (Sections 403 & 528 correspond respectively to CrPC Sections 362 & 482).
Litigation Management: Magistrate courts can proceed unhindered once the High Court has declined quash. This promotes speedy trials and reduces docket pressure on High Courts.
Civil–Criminal Overlap: The judgment affirms that civil transactions may attract criminal liability if ingredients of cheating/misappropriation appear on the complaint’s face, undermining the oft-pleaded “purely civil dispute” defence.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 482 CrPC (Inherent Powers): A “safety-valve” allowing High Courts to make orders necessary to (a) give effect to the CrPC, (b) prevent abuse of process, or (c) secure ends of justice. It is discretionary, extraordinary, and to be exercised sparingly.
Quashing Petition: An application requesting the High Court to terminate criminal proceedings before trial, usually on the ground that the complaint/FIR fails to disclose an offence or is malicious.
Section 362 CrPC (Bar on Review): Once a criminal court signs its judgment or final order, it cannot alter or review it except to correct mere clerical or arithmetical errors. Purpose: protect finality and prevent endless relitigation.
Successive Petitions: Multiple applications filed one after another in respect of the same cause of action. Under criminal law, successive Section 482 petitions are frowned upon unless new facts arise post the earlier order.
Inherent vs. Review Jurisdiction: Inherent power (Section 482) is creative and preventive; review power (explicitly barred by Section 362) is corrective and retrospective. They cannot overlap.

5. Conclusion

M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan crystallises a vital procedural principle: the High Court’s gatekeeping function under Section 482 is a one-time opportunity, not a revolving door. The decision closes a tactical loophole, harmonises inherent powers with statutory finality, and realigns practice with the spirit of speedy justice envisioned in both the CrPC and the forthcoming BNSS. Practitioners must, therefore, marshal all available grounds in their first quashing attempt; litigative procrastination will now meet a jurisdictional bar.