Vishnu Dev Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

4. Learned counsel impeaching the order dated 19.05.2025 has submitted that the principle of res judicata would not apply in a criminal proceedings and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be interfered by this court.

5. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of 'Muskan Enterprises and another versus State of Punjab and another' reported in 2024 SCC Online SC

4107. The relevant paragraphs nos. 14 to 19 are quoted hereinbelow:- " 14. The procedural laws governing criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in our country are quite dissimilar, though the rule of audi alteram partem and a procedure that is both fair and reasonable to both/all parties for rendering justice are at the heart of both the Cr.P.C. and the Civil Procedure Code, 190819. The principle of res judicata, traceable in Section 11 of the CPC, does neither apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in 3 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 the Cr. P.C. akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC. While Section 114 of the CPC read with Order XLVII thereof empowers the civil courts to exercise the power of review, Section 362, Cr. P.C. bars a review. A close reading of Sections 482, Cr. P.C. and 115, CPC would also reflect that the purposes sought to be achieved by exercising the high courts' inherent powers, which the respective procedural laws save, are also at variance. Prudence and propriety in the decision-making process, thus, make it imperative for the high courts to not confuse the procedural laws governing criminal and civil proceedings.

15. The legal position as to whether a second petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C would be maintainable or not is no longer res integra. We may notice a few decisions of this court on the point.

16. In S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Neeta Bhalla, a decision arising out of the N.. Act, the relevant high court had given the party the liberty to avail any remedy in law, if available, at the time of withdrawing her petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This court, observed that the high court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata.

17. That the principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding was reiterated by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P.22.

18. Recently, this Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., has again held that there is no blanket rule against filing of successive petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. before the high court. It was also held that if such a petition is filed, it must be seen whether there was any change in facts or circumstances, necessitating the filing of such petition.

19. Section 482, Cr. P.C., on its own terms, saves the inherent powers of the high court to make such orders as may be necessary (1) to give effect to any order under the Cr. P.C., or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (illi) to secure the ends of justice. Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by 4 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice."

6. He also stated that the second application was preferred in terms of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S making same allegations with fresh evidence and therefore, was maintainable.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A submitted that the judgment of Muskan Enterprises (supra) would not be applicable in the instant case as the facts are entirely different.

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

9. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion, as to whether interference in the matter is required, this Court took note of the facts pleaded in paragraph-3 of the affidavit of the revisionist dated 31.07.2025, which according the revisionist were pleaded in application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S dated

21.09.2024 and subsequently were pleaded in application dated 29.04.2025, the said facts are extracted herein-under:- " That the brief facts leading to filling of the present revision are as follows:- i. That as a matter of fact, the Revisionist has been working on the post of as Library Assistant in Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Malviya Nagar, Gonda temporarily from 1997 to 2008 and permanently since 01.07.2008, At the behest of Opposite Party No. 2, he started issuing fee receipts from 08.04.2023 and regularly handed over the collections to him till 15.05.2023. Furthermore, on

16.05.2023, when the Revisionist was on leave, Opposite Party No. 2 himself collected Rs. 48,400/- from students, issued slips signed by him in lieu of official receipts, and retained the said amount. Students, being unaware of the fraud, accepted the slips. Later. Opposite Party No. 2 directed him to issue permanent receipts against those slips without depositing the said amount collected by him on that day, which is direct proof of his dishonest misappropriation. ii. That thereafter, from 17.05.2023 to 10.07.2023, the fees collected by the Revisionist were duly handed over and acknowledged by Opposite Party No. 2 in the student attendance register, which bears the signatures of the principal and class teachers. However, the daily transaction book of 2023 was 5 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 deliberately made to disappear by Opposite Party No. 2 and despite the Revisionist informing Opposite Party No. 3, the Schooi Manager, of such fraud, no action was taken against Opposite Party No. 2. Instead, the Revisionist was blamed and harassed. (iii) That it is humbly submitted that during the tenure between

16.05.2023 to 30.09.2023, the Opposite Party No. 2 was posted as Head of Office and during such period, a shortage of Rs. 5,53,332/- was detected in school accounts. Out of this, only Rs. 1,79,732/- and about Rs. 2,19,000/- from previous year's fees were deposited by him in the school accounts. The Opposite Party No, 3 did not take any action and instead started blaming the Revisionist for such misappropriation. (iv)When the Revisionist opposed the false and frivolous claims made against him, the Opposite Party No. 3 harassed him. It was found that for the period between 16.05.2023 to 30.09.2023, a shortage of Rs. 3,73,600/- was found in school accounts and instead of fixing responsibility on Opposite Party No. 2, the Opposite Party No. 3 with bias and mala fide intention, started deducting Rs. 15,000/- per month from the revisionist's salary without giving any opportunity of hearing or explanation. Even arrears of the Corona period were withheld, and over Rs. 2,70,000/- has already been forcibly recovered from the revisionist. (v) When the revisionist informed of the aforesaid facts and circumstances to the higher authorities, an inquiry was conducted by two separate teams in January, 2024 as well as July, 2024, wherein opposite party no. 2 was found to have misappropriated the funds. This was the new evidence that was relied upon by the revisionist in the subsequent application and was not available at the time of filing of first application under Section 173(4)."

10. The subsequent second application in terms of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S, based upon the aforesaid facts, was filed on the basis of two inquiry reports of January, 2024 and July, 2024, as stated.

11. It would also be relevant to consider that the observations made by the Magistrate and order dated 03.12.2024, whereby the earlier application was rejected. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- " ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ अन्तगर्त धारा-173 (4) बी०एन०एस०एस० पर आवेदक वो िव्षान अिधव्वा को सुना तथा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺप्ऴों का अवलोकन िकया। 6 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 आवेदक ्षारा कथन िकया गया है िक ्ऺाथर् के वेतन से तय आरोप की धनरािश की िरकवरी करने के िलए मु०-15000/रू० ्ऺितमाह की कटौती फरवरी 2024 से जारी है तथा 12 माह का कोरोना काल की कटौती भी उसी में समािहत कर जमा कर दी गयी त आरोप में तय धनरािश मु०-98965/रू० के सापे्ष कटौती की धनरािश अब तक लगभग 1,32,000/रू० कर ली गयी और वतर्मान में कटौती िकया जा रहा है। प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध जांच आख्या के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक जांच आख्या में उिल्लिखत है िक-अिभलेखों के अवलोकन व आिडट िरपोटर् से पाया जा रहा है िक वषर् 2023 से 2024 तक का भौितक सत्यापन िकया गया, पूरे वषर् बैंक में 4,25,326/रू० जमा िकया गया, िजसमें माह नवम्बर 2023 तक िवष्णु देव ्षारा रसीद काटी गयी, िजसका मु०- 3,73,600/रु० िवष्णुदेव के पास है, जो बैंक में जमा करें का आदेश हुआ। उ्व आदेश के अनुपालन में धमरॏन््श िसह ्षारा बताया गया िक जो भी शेष धनरािश थी, वह बैंक में जमा कर दी गयी थी, अब कोई बकाया नहीं है। िवष्णु देव ्षारा गलत आरोप लगाकर िशकायत की गयी है। आवेदक ्षारा कोई कागजात उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया, जबिक िवप्षीगण ्षारा उपलब्ध कराये गये आिडट िरपोटर्/बैंक स्टेटमेन्ट फीस रसीद व अन्य दस्तावेज संलग्नक जांच आख्या है। प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक आवेदक िवष्णु देव िम्श ्षारा अपने वेतन से मु०- 15000/रू० ्ऺितमाह की दर से कटौती करने के बावत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ भी संलग्न है तथा कटौती रोकने के बावत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ भी प्ऴावली में दािखल है, िजस पर ओिडट िरपोटर् मांगी की गयी है, प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध ऑिडट िरपोटर् में उिल्लिखत है िक िदनांक 17.05.2023 से

30.11.2023 तक मु०-3,73,600/रू० भौितक रूप से जमा नहीं िकया गया है, िजसकी कटौती फरवरी 2024 से मु०-15,000/रु० ्ऺितमाह की दर से िवष्णु देव िम्श के वेतन से हो रही है। िदनांक 17.05.2023 से लेकर िदनांक 30.11.2023 तक िजतना शुल्क िवष्णु देव िम्श ने रसीद काट कर ्ऺाप्त िकया, उसमें से मु०-3,73,600/रु० धमरॏन््श िसह को नहीं िरसीव कराया, िजसके सापे्ष भु०-15,000/ रू० मािसक वेतन से कटौती की जा रही है, जो मु०- 3,73,600/रू० पूणर् हो जाने पर कटौती बन्द कर दी जायेगी। जहाँ तक आवेदक का कथन िक 12 माह का कोरोना काल का वेतन कटौती करते हुए उसी में समािहत कर िदया गया है, उसके सम्बन्ध में आवेदक की ओर से कोई भी अिभलेखीय साष्य दािखन नहीं िकया गया है। आवेदक ्षारा िवप्षीगण का मा्ऴ हैरान व परेशान करने के उ्देश्य से ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। अतः आवेदक ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ अन्तगर्त धार-173 (4) बी०एन०एस०एस० को स्वीकार िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। "

12. Upon due consideration of the facts, circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no interference in the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 is required. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The earlier application was dismissed on merits and therefore, the second application was not maintainable. (ii) The alleged evidence ought to have been produced as the said evidence relates to January 2024 and July 2024 and the first application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S was filed in the month of September, 2025. 7 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 (iii) It appears that being aggrieved by the recovery of amount of Rs. 15,000 per month, which is based upon own admission of the applicant, the earlier application and subsequent second application in terms of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S were filed by the revisionist. (iv) The aforesaid also shows that the revisionist wants to give criminal colour to a civil dispute which practice has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments including rendered in the cases of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023; Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2019; Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 611; Rikhab Birani Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; Jay Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 and Debu Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.3620 of 2025)]. (v) The deduction/recovery from the salary is based upon an admission made by the revisionist in application duly signed by him, as appears from the order of the Magistrate dated 03.12.2024, which is intact, as it has not been challenged before higher court and this finding has not been impeached by placing the said application on record. (vi). To the view of this Court, in the instant case the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply, which means that a person cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present revision. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. September 12, 2025 DiVYa (Saurabh Lavania,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Learned counsel impeaching the order dated 19.05.2025 has submitted that the principle of res judicata would not apply in a criminal proceedings and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be interfered by this court.

5. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of 'Muskan Enterprises and another versus State of Punjab and another' reported in 2024 SCC Online SC

4107. The relevant paragraphs nos. 14 to 19 are quoted hereinbelow:- " 14. The procedural laws governing criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in our country are quite dissimilar, though the rule of audi alteram partem and a procedure that is both fair and reasonable to both/all parties for rendering justice are at the heart of both the Cr.P.C. and the Civil Procedure Code, 190819. The principle of res judicata, traceable in Section 11 of the CPC, does neither apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in 3 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 the Cr. P.C. akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC. While Section 114 of the CPC read with Order XLVII thereof empowers the civil courts to exercise the power of review, Section 362, Cr. P.C. bars a review. A close reading of Sections 482, Cr. P.C. and 115, CPC would also reflect that the purposes sought to be achieved by exercising the high courts' inherent powers, which the respective procedural laws save, are also at variance. Prudence and propriety in the decision-making process, thus, make it imperative for the high courts to not confuse the procedural laws governing criminal and civil proceedings.

15. The legal position as to whether a second petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C would be maintainable or not is no longer res integra. We may notice a few decisions of this court on the point.

16. In S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Neeta Bhalla, a decision arising out of the N.. Act, the relevant high court had given the party the liberty to avail any remedy in law, if available, at the time of withdrawing her petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This court, observed that the high court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata.

17. That the principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding was reiterated by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P.22.

18. Recently, this Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., has again held that there is no blanket rule against filing of successive petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. before the high court. It was also held that if such a petition is filed, it must be seen whether there was any change in facts or circumstances, necessitating the filing of such petition.

19. Section 482, Cr. P.C., on its own terms, saves the inherent powers of the high court to make such orders as may be necessary (1) to give effect to any order under the Cr. P.C., or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (illi) to secure the ends of justice. Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by 4 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice."

6. He also stated that the second application was preferred in terms of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S making same allegations with fresh evidence and therefore, was maintainable.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A submitted that the judgment of Muskan Enterprises (supra) would not be applicable in the instant case as the facts are entirely different.

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

9. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion, as to whether interference in the matter is required, this Court took note of the facts pleaded in paragraph-3 of the affidavit of the revisionist dated 31.07.2025, which according the revisionist were pleaded in application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S dated

21.09.2024 and subsequently were pleaded in application dated 29.04.2025, the said facts are extracted herein-under:- " That the brief facts leading to filling of the present revision are as follows:- i. That as a matter of fact, the Revisionist has been working on the post of as Library Assistant in Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Malviya Nagar, Gonda temporarily from 1997 to 2008 and permanently since 01.07.2008, At the behest of Opposite Party No. 2, he started issuing fee receipts from 08.04.2023 and regularly handed over the collections to him till 15.05.2023. Furthermore, on

16.05.2023, when the Revisionist was on leave, Opposite Party No. 2 himself collected Rs. 48,400/- from students, issued slips signed by him in lieu of official receipts, and retained the said amount. Students, being unaware of the fraud, accepted the slips. Later. Opposite Party No. 2 directed him to issue permanent receipts against those slips without depositing the said amount collected by him on that day, which is direct proof of his dishonest misappropriation. ii. That thereafter, from 17.05.2023 to 10.07.2023, the fees collected by the Revisionist were duly handed over and acknowledged by Opposite Party No. 2 in the student attendance register, which bears the signatures of the principal and class teachers. However, the daily transaction book of 2023 was 5 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 deliberately made to disappear by Opposite Party No. 2 and despite the Revisionist informing Opposite Party No. 3, the Schooi Manager, of such fraud, no action was taken against Opposite Party No. 2. Instead, the Revisionist was blamed and harassed. (iii) That it is humbly submitted that during the tenure between

16.05.2023 to 30.09.2023, the Opposite Party No. 2 was posted as Head of Office and during such period, a shortage of Rs. 5,53,332/- was detected in school accounts. Out of this, only Rs. 1,79,732/- and about Rs. 2,19,000/- from previous year's fees were deposited by him in the school accounts. The Opposite Party No, 3 did not take any action and instead started blaming the Revisionist for such misappropriation. (iv)When the Revisionist opposed the false and frivolous claims made against him, the Opposite Party No. 3 harassed him. It was found that for the period between 16.05.2023 to 30.09.2023, a shortage of Rs. 3,73,600/- was found in school accounts and instead of fixing responsibility on Opposite Party No. 2, the Opposite Party No. 3 with bias and mala fide intention, started deducting Rs. 15,000/- per month from the revisionist's salary without giving any opportunity of hearing or explanation. Even arrears of the Corona period were withheld, and over Rs. 2,70,000/- has already been forcibly recovered from the revisionist. (v) When the revisionist informed of the aforesaid facts and circumstances to the higher authorities, an inquiry was conducted by two separate teams in January, 2024 as well as July, 2024, wherein opposite party no. 2 was found to have misappropriated the funds. This was the new evidence that was relied upon by the revisionist in the subsequent application and was not available at the time of filing of first application under Section 173(4)."

10. The subsequent second application in terms of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S, based upon the aforesaid facts, was filed on the basis of two inquiry reports of January, 2024 and July, 2024, as stated.

11. It would also be relevant to consider that the observations made by the Magistrate and order dated 03.12.2024, whereby the earlier application was rejected. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- " ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ अन्तगर्त धारा-173 (4) बी०एन०एस०एस० पर आवेदक वो िव्षान अिधव्वा को सुना तथा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺप्ऴों का अवलोकन िकया। 6 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 आवेदक ्षारा कथन िकया गया है िक ्ऺाथर् के वेतन से तय आरोप की धनरािश की िरकवरी करने के िलए मु०-15000/रू० ्ऺितमाह की कटौती फरवरी 2024 से जारी है तथा 12 माह का कोरोना काल की कटौती भी उसी में समािहत कर जमा कर दी गयी त आरोप में तय धनरािश मु०-98965/रू० के सापे्ष कटौती की धनरािश अब तक लगभग 1,32,000/रू० कर ली गयी और वतर्मान में कटौती िकया जा रहा है। प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध जांच आख्या के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक जांच आख्या में उिल्लिखत है िक-अिभलेखों के अवलोकन व आिडट िरपोटर् से पाया जा रहा है िक वषर् 2023 से 2024 तक का भौितक सत्यापन िकया गया, पूरे वषर् बैंक में 4,25,326/रू० जमा िकया गया, िजसमें माह नवम्बर 2023 तक िवष्णु देव ्षारा रसीद काटी गयी, िजसका मु०- 3,73,600/रु० िवष्णुदेव के पास है, जो बैंक में जमा करें का आदेश हुआ। उ्व आदेश के अनुपालन में धमरॏन््श िसह ्षारा बताया गया िक जो भी शेष धनरािश थी, वह बैंक में जमा कर दी गयी थी, अब कोई बकाया नहीं है। िवष्णु देव ्षारा गलत आरोप लगाकर िशकायत की गयी है। आवेदक ्षारा कोई कागजात उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया, जबिक िवप्षीगण ्षारा उपलब्ध कराये गये आिडट िरपोटर्/बैंक स्टेटमेन्ट फीस रसीद व अन्य दस्तावेज संलग्नक जांच आख्या है। प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक आवेदक िवष्णु देव िम्श ्षारा अपने वेतन से मु०- 15000/रू० ्ऺितमाह की दर से कटौती करने के बावत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ भी संलग्न है तथा कटौती रोकने के बावत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ भी प्ऴावली में दािखल है, िजस पर ओिडट िरपोटर् मांगी की गयी है, प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध ऑिडट िरपोटर् में उिल्लिखत है िक िदनांक 17.05.2023 से

30.11.2023 तक मु०-3,73,600/रू० भौितक रूप से जमा नहीं िकया गया है, िजसकी कटौती फरवरी 2024 से मु०-15,000/रु० ्ऺितमाह की दर से िवष्णु देव िम्श के वेतन से हो रही है। िदनांक 17.05.2023 से लेकर िदनांक 30.11.2023 तक िजतना शुल्क िवष्णु देव िम्श ने रसीद काट कर ्ऺाप्त िकया, उसमें से मु०-3,73,600/रु० धमरॏन््श िसह को नहीं िरसीव कराया, िजसके सापे्ष भु०-15,000/ रू० मािसक वेतन से कटौती की जा रही है, जो मु०- 3,73,600/रू० पूणर् हो जाने पर कटौती बन्द कर दी जायेगी। जहाँ तक आवेदक का कथन िक 12 माह का कोरोना काल का वेतन कटौती करते हुए उसी में समािहत कर िदया गया है, उसके सम्बन्ध में आवेदक की ओर से कोई भी अिभलेखीय साष्य दािखन नहीं िकया गया है। आवेदक ्षारा िवप्षीगण का मा्ऴ हैरान व परेशान करने के उ्देश्य से ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। अतः आवेदक ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ अन्तगर्त धार-173 (4) बी०एन०एस०एस० को स्वीकार िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। "

12. Upon due consideration of the facts, circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no interference in the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 is required. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The earlier application was dismissed on merits and therefore, the second application was not maintainable. (ii) The alleged evidence ought to have been produced as the said evidence relates to January 2024 and July 2024 and the first application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S was filed in the month of September, 2025. 7 CRLRD No. 465 of 2025 (iii) It appears that being aggrieved by the recovery of amount of Rs. 15,000 per month, which is based upon own admission of the applicant, the earlier application and subsequent second application in terms of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S were filed by the revisionist. (iv) The aforesaid also shows that the revisionist wants to give criminal colour to a civil dispute which practice has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments including rendered in the cases of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023; Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2019; Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 611; Rikhab Birani Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; Jay Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 and Debu Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.3620 of 2025)]. (v) The deduction/recovery from the salary is based upon an admission made by the revisionist in application duly signed by him, as appears from the order of the Magistrate dated 03.12.2024, which is intact, as it has not been challenged before higher court and this finding has not been impeached by placing the said application on record. (vi). To the view of this Court, in the instant case the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply, which means that a person cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present revision. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. September 12, 2025 DiVYa (Saurabh Lavania,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench