1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33912 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4092 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Pandey And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Abhishek Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in Court is taken on record. 2. The present application has been preferred by the applicants with the following prayer:- "to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 39927 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Prandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2023, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC against petitioner no. 1 and 2, and under Section 504 and 506 IPC against petitioner no. 3, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow North (Commissionerate Lucknow) pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Lucknow." 3. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present applicant as the applicant no. 2 -Maya Pandey, wife of applicant no. 1 Vijay Pandey had already approached this Court in the same matter by filing Application U/s 482 No. 47 of 2024, which was disposed of by order dated 08.01.2024, copy of which has been provided by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and the same is quoted here-in-below: "1. प्रार्थिनी के विद्वान अधिक्ता श्री संदीप कु मार पाल ता विद्वान अधितरिरक्त शासकीय अधिक्ता श्री राके श कु मार सिंसह को सुना ता पत्राली का अलोकन विकया। 2. ारा 482 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतर्ग&त प्रस्तुत इस प्रा&ना के द्वारा प्रार्थिनी ने अ०सं० 027 सन 2023 अंतर्ग&त ारा 406, 504, 506 भा०दं०वि०, ाना जानकीपुरम, जिजला लखनऊ के आार पर संस्थिस्त ाद संख्या 39927 सन 2023 के अंतर्ग&त आरोप पत्र ता तलबी आदेश की ैता को चुनौती दी है। 3. कें द्रीय जांच ब्यूरो बनाम आय&न सिंसह आविद, 2023 एससीसी ऑनलाइन एससी 379 में अारिरत है विक आरोपों की सच्चाई की 2 जांच मात्र विचारण के दौरान साक्ष्य लेने के उपरांत ही की जा सकती है ता ारा 482 द.प्र.सं के प्रा&ना पत्र को तय करते हुए यह न्यायालय लघु विचारण नहीं कर सकता है 4. उपरोक्त कानूनी स्थिस्धित का सामना करते हुए, आेविदका के विद्वान अधिक्ता का कहना है विक ह इस आेदन को योग्यता के आार पर विना&रण नहीं चाहती हैं और ह अपनी प्रा&ना को के ल उस सीमा तक सीविमत रखती हैं, जिजससे आेविदका को संबंधित अदालत के समक्ष आत्मसमप&ण करने और आेदन दायर करने की अनुमधित विमल सके । जमानत की मांर्ग कर रही हैं और उधिचत विनदIश जारी विकए जा सकते हैं विक उस पर कानून के अनुसार शीघ्र सुनाई और विनण&य लिलया जा सके । 5. तदनुसार यह प्रा&ना-पत्र इस विनदIश के सा विनस्तारिरत विकया जाता है विक यविद प्रार्थिनी जमानत पर रिरहा विकए जाने हेतु प्रा&ना - पत्र प्रस्तुत करती है तो उसे माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सतेंदर कु मार अंधितल बनाम सी.बी.आई., (2021) 10 एससीसी 773 में अारिरत विधिक जिसद्धांतों के आलोक में शीघ्रतापू&क विनणMत विकया जाएर्गा। 6. तदुसार, प्रा&ना-पत्र विनस्तारिरत विकया जाता है।" 4. It is further submitted that the applicant no. 1 is the husband and applicant no. 3 is the son of applicant no. 2 then how they could not know about the filing of the application by the applicant no. 2 before this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that it was filed by applicant no. 2 and the applicants no. 1 and 3 have no knowledge of the same. 6. But this submission does not appeal to the Court as the applicant no. 2 is the wife of applicant no. 1 and mother of applicant no. 3 but this fact could not be ignored that in the earlier application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants no. 1 and 3 were not the party. So as far as applicant no. 2 is concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as successive application filed by applicant no. 2 without disclosing this fact in the present application on its affidavit filed along-with present application. Hence it is not maintainable as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399 itself non-discloses by the applicant no. 2 an amounts to material concealment. Hence the present application is dismissed as 3 far as applicant no. 2 is concerned with a cost of Rs.50,000/-, which shall be deposited within a period of one month before the Senior Registrar of this Court, failing which, the Senior Registrar is directed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. 7. As far as applicant nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, at this stage, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant nos. 1 and 3 to file bail application before the trial court, which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously. 8. Mr. Rao Narendra Singh-I, learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS is disposed of so far as it relates to applicant nos. 1 and 3 with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant nos. 1 and 3 apply for bail before the Court concerned, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 10. Liberty is also granted to the applicant nos. 1 and 3 to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment. 11. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant nos. 1 and 3 apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant nos. 1 and 3 in the aforesaid case. 4 12. With the aforesaid observations, the present application, is disposed of so far as it relates to applicant nos. 1 and 3 is concerned and the same is dismissed with regard to applicant no. 2. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench