High Court

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 while relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399, has submitted that subsequent petition seeking the same relief is not maintainable, as there is an specific bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the contention of learned counsel for respondent asserting that the factum of filing the earlier writ petition was not concealed. In paragraph 1 of the prayer clause he has clearly mentioned that this is a second petition. Thereafter, he has invited attention of the Court towards the prayer made in this petition, which are extracted below:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 21453 of 2020; Smt. Mehtab Muneer Vs. Mohd. Farhan, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow pending before the Ld. Additional Court, Room No. 12, District Lucknow as well as the impugned Summoning Order dated 03/10/2020 issued by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Room No. 11, District Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 21453 of 2020; Smt. Mehtab Muneer Vs. Mohd. Farhan as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition, in the interest of justice. (ii) It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Order dated 01/10/2024, whereby the Ld. Court below allowed the application of the Complainant filed under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, directing the Applicant to pay 4 lakh rupees as an interim compensation as well as the Order dated 01/10/2024 whereby the Ld. Court below has rejected the application dated 26/02/2024 filed by the Applicant as contained in Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively to this petition, in the interest of justice. It has been submitted that prayer no. 1 is same as was in the earlier petition. So far as prayer no. 2 is concerned, he has prayed for quashing of two orders i.e. order dated 01.10.2024 and order dated 26.2.2024. Vide the order dated 1.10.2024 the learned court below has allowed the application filed by the complainant under Section 143-A of N.I. Act directing the applicant to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as interim compensation and vide the order dated 26.2.2024 learned court below has rejected the application dated 26.02.2024 filed by the petitioner. Both the orders are on record as Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively. It has been further submitted that since subsequent cause of action accrued to the applicant on account of passing of two impugned orders, which are annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, the second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Perused the record so also the judgment of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra). The Apex Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) was dealing with the case where earlier the petitioner, when charge sheet was filed against him and cognizance was taken, challenged only sanction order dated 30.12.2013 and no other prayer was made in the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the year 2022, the petitioner filed a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein to quash the charge sheet dated 30.04.2015 and cognizance order dated 12.06.2015. It was noted by the Apex Court that charge sheet or the order of cognizance were very much in existence while he filed the first petition and therefore, he could not file the second petition challenging the cognizance order as well as charge sheet. The Apex Court in paragraph 11 of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) held that "it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance". Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) are extracted below:- "11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.

12. In the case on hand, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order. That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. The impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court holding to this effect is, therefore, incontrovertible on all counts and does not warrant interference." In this case, the petitioner has filed second petition under changed circumstances. The subsequent cause of action in shape of the impugned orders (Annexure No. 3 and 4) were not available at the time of filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not made any concealment of fact. In the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and others, (1975) 3 SCC 706, the second petition was held to be permissible as the circumstances obtaining at the time of subsequent petition were different from what they were at the time of earlier one and that was the distinguishing factor which saved the second petition. In SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, the Apex Court has held that when the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any available in law, the High Court would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on being petitioned again and principle of res judicata would stand vacated. In Vinod Kumar, IAS. Vs. Union of India and others, a 3- Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not bar of filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify. In this case, the petitioner has subsequent cause of action which are clearly distinguished from the earlier cause of action when the first petition was filed and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the objection that second petition is not maintainable is overruled. The petition is held as maintainable. List on 24.1.2025 as fresh for further hearing. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 R.C.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 while relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399, has submitted that subsequent petition seeking the same relief is not maintainable, as there is an specific bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the contention of learned counsel for respondent asserting that the factum of filing the earlier writ petition was not concealed. In paragraph 1 of the prayer clause he has clearly mentioned that this is a second petition. Thereafter, he has invited attention of the Court towards the prayer made in this petition, which are extracted below:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 21453 of 2020; Smt. Mehtab Muneer Vs. Mohd. Farhan, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow pending before the Ld. Additional Court, Room No. 12, District Lucknow as well as the impugned Summoning Order dated 03/10/2020 issued by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Room No. 11, District Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 21453 of 2020; Smt. Mehtab Muneer Vs. Mohd. Farhan as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition, in the interest of justice. (ii) It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Order dated 01/10/2024, whereby the Ld. Court below allowed the application of the Complainant filed under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, directing the Applicant to pay 4 lakh rupees as an interim compensation as well as the Order dated 01/10/2024 whereby the Ld. Court below has rejected the application dated 26/02/2024 filed by the Applicant as contained in Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively to this petition, in the interest of justice. It has been submitted that prayer no. 1 is same as was in the earlier petition. So far as prayer no. 2 is concerned, he has prayed for quashing of two orders i.e. order dated 01.10.2024 and order dated 26.2.2024. Vide the order dated 1.10.2024 the learned court below has allowed the application filed by the complainant under Section 143-A of N.I. Act directing the applicant to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as interim compensation and vide the order dated 26.2.2024 learned court below has rejected the application dated 26.02.2024 filed by the petitioner. Both the orders are on record as Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively. It has been further submitted that since subsequent cause of action accrued to the applicant on account of passing of two impugned orders, which are annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, the second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Perused the record so also the judgment of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra). The Apex Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) was dealing with the case where earlier the petitioner, when charge sheet was filed against him and cognizance was taken, challenged only sanction order dated 30.12.2013 and no other prayer was made in the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the year 2022, the petitioner filed a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein to quash the charge sheet dated 30.04.2015 and cognizance order dated 12.06.2015. It was noted by the Apex Court that charge sheet or the order of cognizance were very much in existence while he filed the first petition and therefore, he could not file the second petition challenging the cognizance order as well as charge sheet. The Apex Court in paragraph 11 of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) held that "it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance". Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) are extracted below:- "11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.

12. In the case on hand, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order. That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. The impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court holding to this effect is, therefore, incontrovertible on all counts and does not warrant interference." In this case, the petitioner has filed second petition under changed circumstances. The subsequent cause of action in shape of the impugned orders (Annexure No. 3 and 4) were not available at the time of filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not made any concealment of fact. In the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and others, (1975) 3 SCC 706, the second petition was held to be permissible as the circumstances obtaining at the time of subsequent petition were different from what they were at the time of earlier one and that was the distinguishing factor which saved the second petition. In SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, the Apex Court has held that when the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any available in law, the High Court would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on being petitioned again and principle of res judicata would stand vacated. In Vinod Kumar, IAS. Vs. Union of India and others, a 3- Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not bar of filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify. In this case, the petitioner has subsequent cause of action which are clearly distinguished from the earlier cause of action when the first petition was filed and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the objection that second petition is not maintainable is overruled. The petition is held as maintainable. List on 24.1.2025 as fresh for further hearing. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 R.C.