Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51544-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6101 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abhimanyu Rana Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner, by means of this second writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.05.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0340 of 2024 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kankarkhera, District-Meerut. 3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition as admittedly this is second writ petition preferred by the petitioner for the same cause of action. He further added that earlier the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by preferring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18341 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.10.2024 by a Coordinate Bench on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner giving the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that instead of approaching the appropriate forum, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, which is second petition seeking the same relief. As such, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Before parting with the matter, we may refer to Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 wherein 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. 5. Besides this, the issue of filing successive writ petition has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again and it has been held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, the provisions enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C., which is founded on public policy, mandates that successive writ petition cannot be entertained for the same relief. (Ref: M/s. Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 88; Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 1994 (6) SCC 97; and Khacher Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1995 All. 338). 6. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2687, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions." 7. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573. 8. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. AIR 1997 SC 1005 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that filing successive misconceived and frivolous applications for clarification, modification or for seeking a review of the order interferes with the purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. Such a litigant must be dealt with a very heavy hand. 9. In Sabia Khan & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 10. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasoni Bai & Anr., (2003) 1 SCC 488, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law. 11. Considering the aforesaid propositions of law, objection raised by learned A.G.A. and perusing the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18341 of 2024, we are of the opinion that the second writ petition, seeking the same relief, is not maintainable and the instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Manish Himwan (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M.C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad