The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of the same First Information Report (FIR) is not maintainable unless there is a change in circumstances. The Court dismissed the petitioner's second writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M.C. Ravikumar v. State, which bars successive petitions unless new grounds emerge. This judgment underscores the principle that litigants cannot repeatedly invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to stall proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bharat Prajapati, sought quashing of an FIR registered against him at Police Station Dahi, District Unnao, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR was lodged on 26.12.2024. The petitioner also sought a direction restraining the respondents from arresting him based on the impugned FIR.
Key Facts
- The FIR (Case Crime No. 275/2024) was registered on 26.12.2024 under multiple sections of the BNS, 2023.
- The petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4041 of 2026), which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.05.2026 with liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy."
- The petitioner filed the present petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2026) on the ground that a co-accused had been granted relief by the same Court.
Procedural History
- 04.05.2026: The petitioner's first writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4041 of 2026) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy."
- July 2026: The petitioner filed the present writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2026) seeking quashing of the same FIR.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs:
- Quashing of the FIR (Case Crime No. 275/2024) registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.
- A direction restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner based on the impugned FIR.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a second petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the same FIR is maintainable when the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy," and no new circumstances or grounds had emerged.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the Court had previously granted relief to a co-accused in a similar matter, and thus, the present petition should be entertained. The petitioner relied on the principle of parity and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by the learned Government Advocate, opposed the petition on the ground that the first petition had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy," and no new circumstances warranted the filing of a second petition. The State relied on the judgment in Sayed Mohd. Hamza Alias Hamza v. State of U.P., which held that successive petitions are not maintainable unless there is a change in circumstances.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the maintainability of the second petition in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Ravikumar v. State. The Court observed:
"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."
The Court emphasized that permitting successive petitions would enable litigants to stall proceedings indefinitely, which would amount to an abuse of process. The Court further noted that the earlier petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy," not with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thus, the petitioner could have availed other remedies, such as anticipatory bail, but could not approach the High Court again for quashing the same FIR.
The Court relied on the observations in Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, which held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to override the bar on review under Section 362 CrPC. The Court reiterated that the High Court is not empowered to review its own decision under the guise of inherent powers.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no case for grant of indulgence was made out. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy" as may be available to him. The Court did not grant any specific relief, such as quashing of the FIR or directions restraining arrest, as the petition was dismissed on maintainability grounds.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Successive Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC Are Not Maintainable Without Changed Circumstances
- Practitioners must ensure that all grounds for quashing an FIR are raised in the first petition under Section 482 CrPC. Filing a second petition without new circumstances or grounds will likely result in dismissal.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the earlier petition was dismissed on merits or withdrawn with liberty to pursue other remedies. If the latter, litigants cannot file a second petition for the same relief.
Distinction Between "Fresh Petition" and "Appropriate Remedy"
- The Court drew a clear distinction between liberty to file a "fresh petition" and liberty to pursue "appropriate remedy." The former implies permission to file another petition for the same relief, while the latter implies availing other legal remedies, such as anticipatory bail.
- Litigants must carefully phrase their prayers when withdrawing a petition to avoid ambiguity. If the intention is to file another petition, specific liberty must be sought and granted.
Inherent Powers Cannot Override Statutory Bars
- The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent statutory bars, such as the bar on review under Section 362 CrPC. Courts will not entertain petitions that amount to a review of earlier orders under the guise of inherent jurisdiction.
