Second petition U/s 482 CrPC for quashing a complaint maintainable under changed facts and circumstances

Anil Khadkiwala Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Another

Supreme Court

30/07/2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1157 OF 2019

About/from the judgment:

The Supreme Court has observed that second application for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be dismissed as not maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier application.

 

In Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government Of NCT Of Delhi), the Delhi High Court refused a plea to quash the summons issued to an accused on the ground that earlier petition for the same relief had already been dismissed, and thus the second application is not maintainable.

 

In his first plea under Section 482, Cr.P.C. his contention was that he had resigned from the Company and therefore he has no liability in the cheque case filed against the company and persons including himself. This application was dismissed without addressing the aforesaid contention. In his second petition, he produced Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies to prove his resignation. However, the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability.

Noticing these facts, the court observed:

 

There was a difference between the earlier application and the subsequent one, inasmuch as the statutory Form 32 did not fall for 5 consideration by the Court earlier. The factum of resignation is not in dispute between the parties. The subsequent application, strictly speaking, therefore cannot be said to a repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances.

 

The bench also noted that, in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh, it was held that a successive application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. under changed circumstances was maintainable and the dismissal of the earlier application was no bar to the same. The bench, setting aside the High Court order, said:

 

"The Company, of which the appellant was a Director, is a party respondent in the complaint. The interests of the complainant are therefore adequately protected. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that the second application for quashing of the complaint was not maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier application."

Read the Judgment

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Formats for use
Please reload

Talk to our volunteer on our #Helpline

8882-498-498

Single Helpline Number For Men In Distress In India

Join our mailing list!  Stay up-to-date on upcoming projects, offers & events.

  • Follow Daaman on Facebook
  • Follow Daaman on Twitter

©2018-2020 Daaman Welfare Society & Trust.

All rights reserved.

Beware, anyone can be a victim of gender bias in society and laws! 

Don't wait: Schedule a conversation with a trusted, experienced Men's Rights Activist to find out how only awareness is the key to fight and remove prevailing gender bias against men in society.