JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State.

3. The offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (for short ‘MPID Act’) has been registered against the petitioner. When the FIR was registered Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were applied. Immediately the applicant approached this Court to quash the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, during the course of arguments, it was revealed that inadvertently the Sections under MPID Act remained to be mentioned in petition. However, on instructions, he withdrew the proceeding. The investigation officer was restrained from filing the charge sheet by interim relief. However, the fact remains that on the day of filing the said petition, the petitioner/applicant knew that the MPID Act was applied. Since the material facts were suppressed, this Court dismissed the said petition and imposed a cost of Rs.5 lacs. The petitioner impugned that order in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Special Leave to Appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. The cost of Rs.5 lacs was reduced to Rs.1 lac.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised that since the earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, the applicant cannot approach this Court again.

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sapkal would argue that when the petition was dismissed in Supreme Court, the charge sheet was already filed. It must be presumed that the charge sheet was also brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the specific observations have been recorded that the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of this Court dated 11.12.2020. Since the charge sheet was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the wide scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., an application under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. has lost the scope.

6. To buttress his arguments, he relied on the case of Pankaj and Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/4413/2022 decided by this Court (Nagpur Bench) dated 12.12.2022. In the said case, the applicant had first filed discharge application and after its rejection he filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. On this facts, this Court in paragraph No.14 has observed thus;

“14. In the instant case, the applicants had first filed discharge application and after its rejection, they came before this Court by invoking inherent powers of this Court. Although, it is true that there are wider considerations which go into the decision of this Court taken in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. but we must say that these wider considerations include the considerations, called narrower considerations, which weigh with the Trial Court while deciding application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. While deciding the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, all that the Trial Court has to examine is as to whether or not there are sufficient grounds available for proceeding further in the matter and if it is satisfied that sufficient grounds are indeed available, the Trial Court is required to proceed to the next Section i.e. Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. by framing charge against the accused. The consideration of existence of sufficient grounds or otherwise governing Section 227 of Cr.P.C. power is also one of the considerations for the High Court to decide on an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Sessions Trial. But, that is not the only consideration controlling discretion of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There are other considerations as well, as could be found t