Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15633 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2274 of 2025 Applicant :- Jay Prakash Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. Present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 B.N.S.S. with the following main reliefs:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Gorakhpur in Session Case No. 1723/2021 (State Vs. Smt. Usha Devi & others) under section 409,419,420,467, 468,471, 120B of IPC and section 13 of P.C. Act in F. I.R. / Case Crime No.0216/2021, PS-Itiyathok, District Gonda, contained as Annexure No.1, in the interest of justice. As an interim measure to stay the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (P.C. Act), Gorakhpur in Session Case No.1723/2021 (State Vs. Smt. Usha Devi & others) under section 409,419,420,467, 468,471, 120B of IPC and section 13 of P.C. Act in F. I.R./Case Crime No.0216/2021, PS-Itiyathok, District Gonda, contained as Annexure No.1, in respect of petitioner, during pendency of instant petition, in the interest of justice." At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present case as earlier also, the applicant had approached this Court by filing an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 B.N.S.S. for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C.) Act including the impugned cognizance order and summoning order. It is further submitted that the discharge application has been rejected which is impugned in the present petition, after considering all the relevant materials including the inquiry report conducted by the department in pursuance thereof, the F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that in the earlier petition, the applicant had taken all the grounds, which is now being taken in the present case, by placing reliance upon the inquiry report and this Court had refused to interfere in the matter and at that stage, the case was disposed of on the request of learned counsel for the applicant with liberty to the applicant to avail remedy available under law including anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court. Now challenging the order dated 24.12.2024 whereby the discharge application has been rejected, by placing reliance upon the same evidence on the basis of which, the Court has not interfered, firstly, at the stage when petition was filed for quashing of the F.I.R. and secondly, in the application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. hence the present case is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at present he is challenging the order passed on the application of discharge, which has been passed without considering the pleas taken by the applicant but unable to dispute the submissions raised by learned A.G.A. The applicant is placing reliance upon the same inquiry report which was earlier relied upon by filing the case for quashing of the F.I.R. and for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and on the said basis, the Court had already rejected the prayer of the applicant firstly, for quashing of the F.I.R. and secondly, for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings after filing of the charge-sheet. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that once the pleas, which are now being taken in the second case preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., which had already been taken by the applicant firstly, at the stage of filing of writ petition for quashing of the F.I.R. and secondly, at the time of filing 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. case for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including cognizance order after filing of the charge sheet now on the same evidence, this case challenging the order of rejection of discharge application is not permissible as twice this Court had refused to accept the prayer of the applicant for quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings respectively on the basis of the same evidence i.e. the inquiry report in pursuance thereof, the F.I.R. was lodged. In view of the facts, circumstances and observations made hereinabove, the present case is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025/Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench