Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

R/CR.MA/11812/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2022 4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh would rely upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in case of All India State Bank Officers Federation Through Its President Versus Union of India, reported at 1990 (Supp 1) SCC 336, on basis of which judgment, learned Advocate Mr. Parikh would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court, by way of the said judgment has laid down the law that even in case of suppression of fact, the petition should not be dismissed. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar, I.A.S Versus Union of India & others, in Writ Petition (Criminal No. 255/2021) dated 29.06.2021 and would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has in this decision laid down the law that dismissal of an earlier petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section-482.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court referring to an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and has clarified that the dismissal of an earlier petition does not bar filing of a subsequent petition under Section-482. The issue if it had rested there, might not have required much deliberation but in the considered opinion of this Court issue does not rest there.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court even in the paragraph quoted herein above qualifies the proposition by holding that a second petition for quashing under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be maintainable " in case the facts so justify". The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is very clear, i.e. the petitioner when he prefers a second quashing petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be first required to be make out of case as to why the facts would justify entertaining of the second quashing petition.

11. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh has sought to submit that the petitioner has very 'candidly' mentioned the facts which would justify maintainability of the second quashing petition in his rejoinder. This Court has gone through the affidavit in rejoinder which had been preceded by a written submission by the learned Advocate. This Court does not find that even in the affidavit in rejoinder there is any justification as to why the second quashing petition should be entertained by this Court more particularly when the first petition under Section-482 had been withdrawn. Rather a perfunctory apology has been made in the last paragraph of the affidavit in rejoinder that the petitioner had not brought to the notice of his learned Advocate about the fact of the petition for quashing having been withdrawn earlier.