Change In Law Regarded As Vital Change In Circumstances Granting HC The Power To Entertain Subsequent Petition U/s 482 CrPC Even If Earlier Petition Was Withdrawn Without Leave: SC
The Supreme Court has held that a change in law can be regarded as a vital change in circumstances, granting the High Court the power, competence, and jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, even if the earlier petition was withdrawn without leave.
The Court quashed the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed a Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Muskan Enterprises (Appellant). The Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for reconsideration of the deposit condition under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act), 1881.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave.”
Advocate Shumaila Altaf represented the Appellants, while AAG Mohd Irshad appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in a cheque bounce case by the Trial Court.
While admitting the Appeal against the same, the Sessions Court suspended the sentence and granted bail but directed the Appellants to deposit 20% of the compensation within 60 days. The Appellants challenged the deposit condition before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. However, the Petition was dismissed as withdrawn after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi (2019) held the deposit condition mandatory under Section 148 of the N.I. Act.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023), clarifying that Appellate Courts have discretion to waive the deposit condition in exceptional cases. Relying on this decision, the Appellants filed a second Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, which the High Court also dismissed.
The Supreme Court referred to its decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2007), a decision arising out of the N.I. Act, where the High Court had given the party the liberty to avail any remedy in law, if available, at the time of withdrawing her petition under section 482, Cr.PC. The Court had observed that, “the high court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata.”
On the other hand, in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P, the Apex Court held that “there is no blanket rule against filing of successive petitions under Section 482 of the Cr. PC before the High Court. It was also held that if such a petition is filed, it must be seen whether there was any change in facts or circumstances, necessitating the filing of such petition.”
The Court then reiterated its decision in Jamboo Bhandari (Supra), wherein a Co-ordinate Bench held that “a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the NI Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.”
Consequently, the Court held that “the impugned order of the High Court declining to entertain the subsequent petition under Section 482, Cr. PC of the appellants is unsustainable in law. However, we do not consider the need to remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the subsequent petition under Section 482, Cr. PC; instead, in our view, justice would be sufficiently served if the Sessions Court re-examines the issue of deposit being required to be made by the appellants in the light of the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari (supra).”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State Of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1046)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Shumaila Altaf, Harvinder Singh Mann and Sakib Altaf; AOR Abhimanue Shrestha
Respondent: AAG Mohd Irshad; AOR Karan Sharma and Nishant Bishnoi; Advocates Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Srishti Prabhakar and R. C. Goutam
