Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108707 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29449 of 2007 Applicant :- Jagdish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Rajul Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Munesh Kumar Sharma,Rajesh Singh,Sunil Kumar,Vijit Saxena Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the entire proceedings of criminal case no.464/IX of 2007 (State v. Lakho), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 356, 342, 364-A IPC, P.S. Suri, District Mathura pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-IV, Mathura. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant on 19.07.2025 alleging that the applicant and his wife along with other associates abducted opposite party no.2 at 6.00 P.M. and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom but he himself released from the clutches of the applicant and his associates. In the said FIR after investigation chargesheet was submitted on 31.05.2007, thereafter, the Court has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 05.06.2007, the same was challenged by the applicant by means of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.21979 of 2007. The said application was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.02.2008. For ready reference the order dated 20.02.2008 is reproduced below:- "This application has not been pressed by Mr. Anil Kumar holding brief for Mr. Rajul Bhargava counsel for the applicants. It is dismissed as not pressed." 4. Although there was no liberty to file a fresh application in the order dated 20.02.2008, still the applicant has filed the second i.e. instant application Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.No.29449 of 2007 in which a coordinate bench vide order dated 04.02.2008 after issuing notices to the opposite parties stayed the further proceedings. 5. Even this application was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.01.2024. For ready reference the order dated 24.01.2024 is reproduced below:- "Even in revised call none has appeared for the applicant. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present. This application is dismissed for want of prosecution." 6. Thereafter, instead of filing recall application, an application for correction was moved, which too was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2024. For ready reference the order dated 05.02.2024 is reproduced below:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This application for correction of order dated 24.01.2024 is misconceived and is rejected." 7. Thereafter, another correction application was filed bearing Correction Application No.08 of 2024, which was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2024. For ready reference the order dated 15.02.2024 is reproduced below:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. Reasons shown in the accompanying affidavit found sufficient. The application is allowed. List on 26.02.2024. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing." 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the contents of FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer does not disclose offence under Section 364 IPC but the learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind has issued summons against the applicant. He further submits that the entire family of the applicant has been implicated. The criminal proceeding has only been initiated with malafide intention and due to political rivalry. The allegations levelled in the FIR are improbable and concocted as no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The offence under Section 364 IPC is not made out. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the application and contended that this application is not maintainable as the earlier application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., which was filed for the same cause of action has been dismissed as not pressed without any liberty to file a fresh. Once the said application has been dismissed, no second application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. To buttress their argument, they have placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors.2 wherein it has been held as follows:- "7. .......The principle underlying R. 1 of O. XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito beneficium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of R. 1 of O. XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in S. 11 of the Code which provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit will not lie in sub-rule (4) of R. 1 of O. XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. ...........It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition........." 10. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Upadhyaya & Co. Vs. State of UP & Ors.3 and referring to the case of Sarguja Transport Service (supra) it was held as follows:- "13. The aforesaid ban for filing a fresh suit is based on public policy. This Court has made the said rule of public policy applicable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT [(1987) 1 SCC 5 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 19]). The reasoning for adopting it in writ jurisdiction is that very often it happens, when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the court is not likely to pass an order admitting the writ petition after it is heard for some time, that a request is made by the petitioner or his counsel to permit him to withdraw it without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit withdrawal of the petition. When once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the party concerned, he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. If so, he cannot file a fresh petition for the same cause once again......" 11. They further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. T.P. Kumaran and M/s. D. Cawasji & Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore & Anr.. In M/s. D. Cawasji wherein it was held as under:- "18. .......Be that as it may, in the earlier writ petitions, the appellants did not pray for refund of the amounts paid by way of cess for the years 1951-52 to 1965-66 and they gave no reasons before the High Court in these writ petitions why they did not make the prayer for refund of the amounts paid during the years in question. Avoiding multiplicity of unnecessary legal proceedings should be an aim of all courts. Therefore, the appellants could not be allowed to split up their claim for refund and file writ petitions on this piece-meal fashion. If the appellants could have, but did not, without any legal justification, claim refund of the amounts paid during the years in question, in the earlier writ petitions, we see no reason why the appellants should be allowed to claim the amounts by filing writ petitions again. In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the conduct of the appellants in not claiming these amounts in the earlier writ petitions without any justification, we do not think we would be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in dismissing the writ petitions which were filed only for the purpose of obtaining the refund........" 12. Learned AGA also submits that under Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules, there is a specific bar against filing of a second application for a direction, order or writ under Article 226 on the same set of facts. For ready reference Rule 7 under Chapter XXII is reproduced below:- "7. No second application on the same facts.- Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts." 13. He further submits that all the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story and the summoning order has not been challenged. Further submission is that when the opposite party no.2 was going to caste his vote he was abducted by the applicant and his associates. The prosecution story is completely corroborated by the statements of the witnesses, it is only thereafter, the chargesheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. It is evident that against the same cause of action an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has earlier been filed, which has been dismissed as not pressed without any liberty to file a fresh, even thereafter, the applicant has moved the instant second application, which has been wrongly entertained by this Court. Apparently, the entire proceedings instituted by the applicant by means of present application is completely barred by the principles of res judicata as once an application/petition has been dismissed by the Court without leave, no second application can be filed. 16. In view of the aforementioned discussion the present application being a second petition on the same set of facts and for similar cause of action and for almost identical reliefs as in the earlier application which had been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.02.2008, this Court not inclined to entertain the same. 17. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad