Supreme Court Slams Article 32 Plea Seeking to Reopen Concluded NI Act Conviction, Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Costs

The Supreme Court has deprecated attempts to reopen concluded criminal proceedings through writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, holding that litigants cannot be permitted to indirectly reagitate issues after availing the entire hierarchy of remedies and securing substantive relief from the Court itself.

Observing that such conduct amounted to a “manifest abuse of the process of law,” the Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman convicted in a cheque dishonour case and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh upon her.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the petitioner’s attempt to reopen the controversy after the conviction had attained finality was wholly misconceived.

The Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs. 1 lakh with the Registry of the Supreme Court within six weeks, to be equally transmitted to the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

The matter arose from proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonour of a cheque issued for Rs. 18 lakh.

According to the case background recorded by the Court, the petitioner had borrowed money in 2012 at an agreed interest rate of 18% per annum and had issued a cheque towards repayment assurance. Upon dishonour of the cheque, criminal proceedings were initiated by the complainant.

The Trial Court, by judgment dated 23.08.2017, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced her to one year’s simple imprisonment while also directing payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 18 lakh with 6% interest.

The conviction and sentence were subsequently affirmed by the Sessions Court on February 25, 2020, and later by the High Court in criminal revision proceedings on July 10, 2024.

The Supreme Court noted that although the petitioner had deposited the principal cheque amount of Rs. 18 lakh, the interest component remained unpaid.

Thereafter, in proceedings arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1558 of 2025, the Supreme Court had granted limited relief on March 9, 2026 by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment subject to payment of an additional Rs.18 lakh towards interest.

The Court had reasoned at that stage that the interest component ordinarily ought not to exceed the principal amount.

Despite the relief granted, the petitioner again approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In the petition, she sought framing of guidelines concerning alleged loan defaults involving unlicensed money lenders and enforcement of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957.

The petitioner contended that the lender was allegedly an unlicensed money lender and therefore the underlying transaction itself was unenforceable.

The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be a clear attempt to reopen issues that had already attained finality through the criminal justice process.

The bench observed that the petitioner had exhausted the entire hierarchy of remedies available in law and could not be permitted to indirectly challenge settled findings under the guise of constitutional proceedings.

In strongly worded observations, the Court stated:

“Notwithstanding the culmination of the criminal proceedings and the grant of substantive relief by this Court, the Petitioner has now invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32, seeking to reopen the controversy on an altogether new footing…”

The Court further observed that such an attempt was “nothing but a manifest abuse of the process of law” and held that the conduct of the petitioner reflected a “calculated attempt to unsettle concluded findings and to evade the legal consequences of a conviction that has attained finality.”

The judgment reiterates the settled legal principle that Article 32, though a fundamental constitutional remedy, cannot be invoked to circumvent final judicial determinations or revive disputes already conclusively adjudicated upon.

While dismissing the writ petition, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh, noting that the petition constituted a misuse of the process of the Court. The amount was directed to be deposited within six weeks and thereafter transferred equally to the accounts of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

Counsel for Petitioner: Karan Bharihoke, Devanshu Yadav and Sahil Sharma, AOR; Counsel for Respondents: Gopal Verma, AOR and Umang Verma

Case Title: S. Gayathiri v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: April 24, 2026