IMPORTANT POINT
Second petition – Though 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 facts and circumstances of individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after other, by invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at first instance.

ORDER :

1. Is a second petition maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition thereunder?

2. This is the short question that arises for consideration.

3. As the issue turned on the very maintainability of the case, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist the Court and, with his usual graciousness, he agreed to do so.

4. We may first note the relevant facts:

Complaint dated 23.06.2012 was filed by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of public funds by the persons involved. The petitioner herein, being the Project Director/Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, at the relevant time, was also implicated. Thereupon, C.C. No. 1280 of 2012 was registered on the file of Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1988’). The petitioner was amongst the accused named therein.

5. In exercise of power under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Act of 1988, by order dated 03.12.2013, the Government of Uttar Pradesh accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 471 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Act of 1988 and any other offences relating thereto. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet dated 30.04.2015 was laid before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur. Therein, the petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Act of 1988. By order dated 12.06.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, took cognizance. The case was thereafter taken on file by the Special Court at Bareilly as Special Case No. 19 of 2016.

6. Long thereafter, the petitioner filed his first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. viz. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018, before the Allahabad High Court. Therein, he chose to challenge only the Government’s sanction order dated 03.12.2013. The State opposed the application, pointing out that a challenge to the sanction could be made before the Trial Court. Thereupon, the petitioner’s counsel sought liberty to approach the Trial Court by way of an appropriate application challenging the sanction. Accepting that plea, the High Court disposed of the application, vide order dated 15.12.2020, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order. Significantly, at the time of filing of this first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the charge sheet was very much on record and the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, had already taken cognizance.

7. However, it was only in the year 2022 that the petitioner felt inspired to file a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. viz. Criminal Misc. Application No. 2014 of 2022. His prayers therein were to quash the charge sheet dated 30.04.2015; the cognizance order dated 12.06.2015; and the proceedings in Special Case No. 19 of 2016, insofar as he was concerned. This application was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, vide order dated 20.02.2023. Therein, the High Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a limited prayer - to quash the sanction order dated 30.12.2013. Holding that it was not open to the petitioner to go on challenging the proceedings one by one and as he had not felt aggrieved by the charge sheet or the order of cognizance when he had filed the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court concluded that the subsequent petition challenging the same would not be maintainable and dismissed the application. It is against this order that the petitione