Introduction
The case Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.*[i]*revolves around the maintainability of a second petition under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) on grounds that were available for a challenge even at the time of filing the first petition. In this case, the petitioner challenged the sanction order for his prosecution in his first petition under s. 482 of CrPC and after about 4 years, challenged the charge sheet, cognizance order and the proceedings related to his case in his second petition under s. 482 of CrPC.
Facts
A complaint was filed in 2012, alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets and embezzlement of public funds in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, a government official, was implicated.
The sanction for prosecution was granted in 2013, charge sheet was filed in 2015 and accordingly, the trial court took cognizance of the matter. The petitioner was charged with various offences.
The petitioner filed his first petition under s. 482 of CrPC in 2018, challenging the sanction order but not the charge sheet or the cognizance order. The Allahabad High Court allowed him to approach the trial court to challenge the sanction order.
In 2022, the petitioner filed a second petition under s. 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings arising in the case.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the second petition, stating that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the charge sheet or cognizance order when filing the first petition.
Held
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the second petition emphasizing that a second petition under s. 482 of CrPC should not be maintainable if it seeks to challenge aspects that were available to be challenged in the first petition.
The Court relied on precedents, such as Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh*[ii]*, emphasizing that a subsequent petition may be deemed maintainable if there are changed circumstances or new facts.
The Court acknowledged that there cannot be a blanket rule against filing a second petition as the same depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court further noted that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under s. 482 of CrPC should not be used to circumvent the bar on review under s. 362 of CrPC.
The Supreme Court agreed with the observation of the Madras High Court in R. Annapurna v. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry*[iii]*, that a petitioner should present all available pleas honestly at the first instance and should not approach the court with ‘instalment pleas.’
The Court emphasized that permitting successive petitions of this nature would potentially allow an accused to unduly delay proceedings and hinder the course of justice.
Analysis
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that an accused cannot file successive petitions under s. 482 of CrPC, ignoring available grounds at the first instance. While a second petition may be permissible in changed circumstances, it should not be used as a tool to stall proceedings. Notably, this decision clarifies that the principle of res judicata, which generally applies to civil cases, is not directly applicable to criminal proceedings under the CrPC. Unlike civil cases, where res judicata prevents the same parties from litigating the same matter multiple times, criminal cases have distinct features, and the finality of criminal judgments is not governed by the same doctrine. Criminal proceedings may involve evolving circumstances, new evidence, or changing legal interpretations, making it necessary to allow limited reconsideration of issues in the interest of justice.
End Notes:
[i] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399
[ii] (1975) 3 SCC 706
[iii] (2002) 10 SCC 401
*Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion. *
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.
2026-04-23
18
min read
Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals in Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier to Justice?
Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.