1 2025:CGHC:60000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2910 of 2025 1 - Suresh Prasad Soni S/o Late Kishun Soni, Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Baniyatoli, Annapurna Gali, Jashpur Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil - Jashpur Nagar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Avitesh Kumar Soni, S/o Suresh Prasad Soni, Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Baniyatoli, Annapurna Gali, Jashpur Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil - Jashpur Nagar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Harsh Soni, S/o Suresh Prasad Soni, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Baniyatoli, Annapurna Gali, Jashpur Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil - Jashpur Nagar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Kumar Soni S/o Late Hingan Prasad Soni, Aged About 49 Years Occupation - Advocate, R/o Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Adv. For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. A. N. Bhakta along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates. ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 10.12.2025 1) By way of instant Petition filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Petitioner prays for quashtment of cognizance order dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned JMFC, Jashpur and entire criminal proceedings pending Criminal Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.16 18:56:24 +0530 2 Case No. 720/2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 294, 447, 427 of IPC. 2) At the outset, it appears that on the earlier round of petition in CRMP No. 2358/2025, the learned counsel for petitioner has withdrawn the CRMP without seeking any liberty to file a fresh petition. 3) In view of the admitted position that the petitioner had earlier filed CRMP No. 2358/2025 seeking identical relief, which was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh petition, the present petition, being a second petition on the same cause of action, is clearly not maintainable. The withdrawal of the earlier petition without liberty operates as a bar against filing a subsequent petition for the same relief, and permitting such a course would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 4) Consequently, the petition is held to be not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti