Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29040 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4118 of 2025 Applicant :- Raja Ram Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishva Nath Pratap Singh,Jiyaram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Ms. Tanvi Jain, learned A.G.A has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present application as earlier also, the applicant had approached this court twice by engaging different counsels in every application, the first Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 1266 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2019 and the second Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 3718 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2024. Against the order dated 23.04.2024, passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 3718 of 2024, the applicant preferred an Special Leave to Appeal No. 9592 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.07.2024. This is the third time that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant for the same cause. 2. In support of her submission, learned A.G.A has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 (12) ADJ 198. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- " 9. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned amicus curiae, would however point out that entertainment of the second petition in Mohan Singh (supra) was held permissible as the circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent petition were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier one and that was the distinguishing factor which saved the second petition. He would further point out that, in Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and another MANU/SC/0440/1990: (1990) 2 SCC 437, this Court cautioned that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to override the bar of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another MANU/SC/0228/1981: (1981) 1 SCC 500 which held that the inherent power of the Court could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also drew our attention to R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others MANU/SC/2813/2000: (2002) 10 SCC 401, wherein a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 28.01.1995 and without mentioning the same, another petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. 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." 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant may be permitted to withdraw the present application as dismissed as not pressed. 4. As such, the present application is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The conduct of the applicant and the counsel is deprecated for filing repeated applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the same prayer. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench