Date of the order
29-06-2021
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Parties
Petitioner - Vinod Kumar
Respondent - Union of India
Subject
- Whether the earlier dismissal of Section 482 of the CrPC bars filing of a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the CrPC?
Overview
- The criminal complaints/FIRs listed in Annexure P-3 are being challenged in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. Annexure P-3, in turn, pertains to 28 cases filed or commenced against the petitioner, including Sl. Nos. 12 and 24, in which the petitioner was convicted on September 24, 2018, and August 10, 2018, respectively.
Legal provision
- Section 482 of the Code - The High Court's inherent powers are preserved. Nothing in this Code shall be construed to limit or influence the High Court's inherent rights to issue such orders as may be necessary to carry out any order made under this Code, to prevent abuse of any Court's process, or to otherwise safeguard the objectives of justice.
- Article 32 of the Constitution - Article 32 of the Indian Constitution enshrines this provision whereby individuals may seek redressal for the violation of their Fundamental Rights.
Judgement analysis
- We see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 32 based on the facts and circumstances of the case. If instructed, the petitioner can always file suitable applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure to have specific criminal cases or charges dismissed.
- Ms Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, asserts at this point that the petitioner has previously addressed the High Court, submitting applications under Section 482 of the Code, which was afterwards withdrawn.
- The law on the subject, as stated by this Court in “Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.” published in SCC (1975) 3 706 is clear: dismissal of an earlier 482 petition does not preclude the filing of a future 482 petition if the facts warrant it.
- Needless to say, if the petitioner submits any proper application under the Code, it will be considered solely on its own merits, unaffected by the dismissal of the instant writ petition.
- If there are any pending applications, they will be dismissed.
Conclusion
Vinod Kumar, an IAS officer, had petitioned the Supreme Court with a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the dismissal of about 28 cases against him. The Court, led by Justice UU Lalit, stated that there is no justification for the petition to be heard under Article 32. If so instructed, the petitioner can always submit relevant applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of particular criminal charges or complaints, according to the Bench, which also included Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi.
