Summary and Analysis of M.C. Ravikumar vs D.S. Velmurugan & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

M.C. Ravikumar vs D.S. Velmurugan & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Cri.) No. 12715 of 2022)
Decision Date: 23 July 2025

2. Related Laws & Sections

• Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  Sections 193 (False Evidence), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 418 (Cheating), 420 (Cheating/Dishonesty), 423 (Fraudulent Deeds), 468 (Forgery), 469 (Forgery to Harm Reputation), 34 (Common Intention), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy).

• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
  Section 482: Inherent power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings.
  Section 362: Bar on reviewing judgments (no review except for clerical errors).

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
  Sections 528 (replaces CrPC 482) and 403 (replaces CrPC 362).

3. Basic Judgment Details

AspectDetailsAppellantM.C. Ravikumar (complainant; travel/finance businessman).RespondentsD.S. Velmurugan & others (money lenders).Lower Court OrderMadras High Court quashed criminal complaint against respondents (2022).Key IssueWhether a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is legally valid when grounds were available earlier.OutcomeSupreme Court set aside High Court’s order; restored criminal complaint.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Background of the Case

• Loan Dispute (2005–2008):
  Appellant borrowed money from respondents and gave original property deeds (Thanjavur and Chennai) as security.
  After repaying ₹1.65 crores, respondents refused to return the deeds.

• Fraudulent Sale Deed (2011):
  Respondents forged a sale deed for appellant’s Thanjavur property after receiving a legal notice.

• Failed Complaints:
  Appellant filed multiple police complaints (2011, 2015), but all were closed/quashed by courts.

• 2019 Complaint:
  Appellant filed Criminal Complaint No. 1828/2019 (Chennai court) against respondents for forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
  Court issued summons (April 2019).

B. High Court Proceedings

1. First Quashing Petition (2019):
   Respondents sought to quash the 2019 complaint.
   High Court dismissed it (December 2021), finding no merit.

2. Second Quashing Petition (2022):
   Respondents filed again on same grounds, claiming a "change in circumstances" (earlier Thanjavur complaint was quashed in 2020).
   High Court allowed it (September 2022), quashing the 2019 complaint.

C. Appellant’s Arguments in Supreme Court

1. Illegal Second Petition:
   No new grounds; respondents reused arguments from the first petition.

2. Violation of Section 362 CrPC:
   High Court cannot review its own order (barred by law).

3. Abuse of Process:
   Respondents misused courts to delay trial.

D. Respondents’ Arguments

1. "Changed Circumstances":
   Quashing of the 2015 Thanjavur complaint justified reopening the case.

2. Civil Dispute, Not Criminal:
   The loan issue was commercial, not criminal.

3. Harassment Claim:
   Appellant was weaponizing courts to trouble them.

E. Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Second Petition Unmaintainable:
   "No new grounds were raised." The quashing of the 2015 complaint (2020) existed before the first petition (2019) was dismissed (2021). Respondents could have argued this earlier.

2. Section 362 CrPC Violated:
   High Court cannot review its own orders except for clerical errors. Allowing a second petition amounted to an illegal review.

3. Precedent Relied On:
   Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP (2023): Successive quashing petitions abuse the legal process if grounds were available earlier.
   Simrikhta v. Dolley Mukherjee (1990): Inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC) cannot override Section 362’s bar on reviews.

4. No Merits in Respondents’ Claims:
   The dispute involved forgery and fraud (criminal acts), not just civil issues.

F. Final Ruling

• High Court Order Quashed: The 2022 decision was illegal.

• Criminal Complaint Restored: Trial to resume before Chennai court.

• Critical Message: Courts must prevent abuse of legal processes. Accused cannot file repeated petitions to stall trials.

Key Takeaways

1. No Second Bites: Accused cannot file multiple quashing petitions on old grounds – it wastes court time and harasses victims.

2. Section 362 CrPC Is Absolute: High Courts cannot review their own orders under the guise of "inherent powers."

3. Fraud vs. Civil Disputes: Forgery, cheating, and conspiracy are criminal offences – they cannot be dismissed as "civil matters."