Table of Contents
Case Title
S. Gayathiri v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Introduction
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a cheque bounce convict who attempted to challenge the legality of the underlying loan transaction after her conviction had already attained finality.
The Court termed the petition a “manifest abuse of the process of law” and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner had earlier faced prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for cheque dishonour.
In 2017, the Trial Court convicted her and:
- Sentenced her to one year’s simple imprisonment
- Directed payment of ₹18 lakh as compensation along with 6% interest
The Sessions Court later upheld the conviction and sentence in 2020. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition in 2024.
The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. In March 2026, the Supreme Court granted limited relief by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment subject to payment of an additional ₹18 lakh towards interest.
Also Read:
SC/ST Act: Essential Ingredients of Offence Explained with Supreme Court Principles https://legalpaathcoaching.com/sc-st-act-essential-ingredients/
Fresh Writ Petition Before Supreme Court
Despite conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
She argued that:
- The lender was allegedly an unlicensed money lender
- Therefore, the underlying loan transaction was unenforceable
- The Court should frame guidelines regarding unlicensed money lending and loan recovery practices
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the petitioner’s conduct.
The Court observed that the petitioner had already:
- Exhausted all available remedies
- Challenged the conviction before appellate courts
- Obtained relief from the Supreme Court itself
Therefore, the petitioner could not reopen the controversy through a fresh writ petition on a completely new ground.
The Court held that the petition represented a deliberate attempt:
- To unsettle final judicial findings
- To indirectly challenge a concluded conviction
- To avoid legal consequences arising from the cheque bounce case
Abuse Of Process Of Law
The Bench stated that Article 32 jurisdiction cannot become a tool for repeatedly reopening concluded disputes.
According to the Court, once criminal proceedings attain finality, parties cannot indirectly challenge the same findings through constitutional writ proceedings.
The Court specifically described the petition as:
- “Wholly misconceived”
- “A clear misuse of the process of this Court
Costs Imposed By Supreme Court
Considering the petitioner’s conduct, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh.
The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount with the Registry of the Supreme Court within six weeks.
Further, the Court ordered that the amount be equally transferred to:
- Supreme Court Bar Association
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and reaffirmed that litigants cannot use Article 32 proceedings to reopen issues that already stand concluded through final criminal judgments.
The judgment also highlights that courts may impose exemplary costs where parties misuse judicial proceedings to delay or avoid compliance with final orders.
Also Read:
SC/ST Act Explained – Key Provisions, Offences & Supreme Court Principles https://legalpaathcoaching.com/sc-st-act/
