9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthu, learned Senior Counsel, was requested to assist the Court and, with his usual graciousness, he agreed to do so. 4. We may first note the relevant facts: Complaint dated 23.06.2012 was filed by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of public funds by the persons involved. The Petitioner herein, being the Project Director/Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, at the relevant time, was also implicated. Thereupon, C.C. No. 1280 of 2012 was registered on the file of Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, Under Sections 409, 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Trial Court by way of an appropriate application challenging the sanction. Accepting that plea, the High Court disposed of the application, vide order dated 15.12.2020, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order. Significantly, at the time of filing of this first petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the charge sheet was very much on record and the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, had already taken cognizance. 7. However, it was only in the year 2022 that the Petitioner felt inspired to file a second petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, viz., Criminal Misc. Application No. 2014 of 2022. His prayers therein were to quash the charge sheet dated 30.04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent application, which is not a repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances, would be maintainable. To the same effect was the more recent decision of this Court in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 294. Earlier, in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 70, this Court held that when the first petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any, available in law, the High Court would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure on being petitioned again and the principle of res judicata would not stand attracted. Again, in Vinod Kumar, IAS. v. Union of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Criminal Procedure with a similar prayer. Noting that the second petition was not made on the strength of anything which had developed after 28.01.1995 but only on the facts which subsisted prior to that date, this Court held that the second petition was not maintainable, as the High Court did not have the power to upset the order dated 28.01.1995 which had attained finality. 10. In S. Madan Kumar v. K. Arjunan (2006) 1 MWN (Cri) DCC 1, the Madras High Court observed that a person who invokes Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should honestly come before the Court raising all the pleas available to him at that point of time and he is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment pleas. It was further observed that there may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
