In a recent judgment, the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that while there is no absolute prohibition on filing successive petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), such petitions are only maintainable if there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances since the previous petition.
Case Background
The case involved petitioners challenging an order by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), which took cognizance of offenses against them. Initially, the petitioners filed a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. Subsequently, in 2021, they approached the High Court with a criminal miscellaneous petition but withdrew it, opting to present their arguments during the charge-framing stage. Despite this, the petitioners filed another petition before the High Court, contending that the case against them was fabricated, especially since they had lodged an FIR resulting in a negative final report. A protest petition against this report led to the cognizance of offenses against them, which was upheld upon revision.
Arguments Presented
The petitioners argued that the charges were baseless and retaliatory. Conversely, the public prosecutor maintained that the initial investigation was flawed, justifying the protest petition. The Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, found a prima facie case against the petitioners and proceeded accordingly.
Court's Analysis and Decision
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the matter, reviewed the records and noted that both the Trial and Revisional Courts had issued detailed and reasoned orders. The Court emphasized that at the cognizance stage, the requirement is to establish a prima facie case, not to assess the veracity of the allegations. The Court found no procedural errors in the lower courts' decisions to take cognizance.
Significantly, the Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. and Anr., which states that while successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC are not categorically barred, their admissibility depends on whether new facts or changed circumstances have emerged since the previous petition. In this case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such changes, rendering their successive petition untenable.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court's decision underscores the principle that the judicial system discourages repetitive petitions under Section 482 CrPC in the absence of new developments. This approach aims to prevent the misuse of judicial processes and ensures that the courts' time is reserved for matters with substantive merit.
This judgment serves as a reminder to litigants that the mere dismissal or withdrawal of a previous petition does not entitle them to file another under the same section without presenting new or altered facts. The courts are vigilant against attempts to re-litigate issues without justification, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.