Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 August, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:137789 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14084 of 2024 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Agarwal,Tanu Shree Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Shivam Agarwal, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicants-Krishna Kumar Singh and Two others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the summoning order dated 27.05.2010 & recurring Non-bailable warranted dated 16.03.2024 and subsequent ancillary orders as well as criminal proceeding in F.R. criminal case no. 116 of 2010 arising out of protest petition/Misc. Application no. 116 of 2010 in case crime no. 09 of 2010 u/s 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area "D.A.A." District-Jhansi.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings in F.R. criminal case no. 116 of 2010 arising out of protest petition/Misc. Application no. 116 of 2010 in case crime no. 09 of 2010 u/s 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area "D.A.A." District-Jhansi, during the pendency of the present criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicants shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47212 of 2023 (Krishna Kumar Singh and 2 Others VS. State of U.P. and Another). Aforesaid application was got dismissed as withdrawn but without liberty to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that since this application is the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same relief, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants referred to the order of Supreme Court dated 29.06.2021 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 255 of 21 (Vinod Kumar, IAS Vs. Union of India and Others). Since the order is short one, therefore, the same is reproduced herein below in its entirety:-
"This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks quashing of Criminal complaints/FIRs mentioned in Annexure P-3. Annexure P-3 in turn refers to 28 cases filed or initiated against the petitioner including cases listed at Sl. Nos. 12 and 24 where conviction was recorded against the petitioner on 24.09.2018 and 10.08.2018 respectively.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 32. The petitioner, if so advised, can always file appropriate applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure ("The Code", for short) seeking quashing of the individual criminal cases or complaints.
At this stage, Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner had approached the High Court on earlier occasions filing applications under Section 482 of the Code which were later withdrawn.
The law on point as held by this Court in "Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors." reported in SCC (1975) 3 706 is clear that dismissal of an earlier 482 petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section 482, in case the facts so justify.
Needless to say that as and when any appropriate application under the Code is preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with purely on its own merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the instant writ petition.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
6. Reference was further made to the judgment/order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2019 (Anil Khadkiwala Vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi). With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicants submits that Court below has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court Superintendent of Remembrancer of Legal Affiars, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and Others, (1975) 3 SCC 706. On the basis of above, the learned counsel for applicants submits that present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly maintainable and therefore, liable to be entertained by this Court.
7. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47212 of 2023 (Krishna Kumar Singh and 2 Others VS. State of U.P. and Another). The said application was got dismissed as withdrawn but no liberty to file a fresh application was granted by this Court. The same is evident from the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in aforementioned application, copy of which is on record as Annexure-19 to the affidavit. Therefore, in view of above, the rigours of law laid down by Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 5, wherein it has been held that if a writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn but no liberty has been granted by the Court to file another writ petition, the subsequent writ petition has not been maintainable, are clearly attracted. In view of above, this Court finds that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the second application. The first application filed by applicants was got dismissed as withdrawn but without liberty to file fresh. As no liberty was granted to the applicants by this Court in the previous application to file a fresh application, therefore, present application is not maintainable. As such, the application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.8.2024 Vinay