JUDGMENT :

Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. A. Parikh for the applicant and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi for respondent No. 2.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an FIR being C.R.-I-33 of 2017 lodged at the Khambhat Rural Police Station, Dist. Anand on 02.07.2017 for offences punishable under Sections - 406,465, 467, 468, 471, 181,193, 199, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - original complainant, has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the present petition more particularly, on two counts that is on the count of suppression of material fact and on the count of a second quashing application for the same purpose not being maintainable.

3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi would elaborate by submitting that the present petitioner had preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 28713 of 2017 praying for the very self-same reliefs and whereas vide an order dated 27.11.2017, learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi would submit that the petitioner had not mentioned this very crucial aspect in the petition and since the same amounts to suppression of a very material fact only on that ground, this Court may reject the petition.

3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi would further submit that since the present petitioner is praying for a relief of quashing, which prayer had been made in the first round of litigation as referred to herein above and whereas since the petitioner had withdrawn the said petition, he would not be entitled to file the present petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi would submit that therefore, also this Court may not entertain this petition.

4. As against the same, learned Advocate Mr. Parikh, on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the preliminary objections raised by the respondent No. 2-original complainant, may not be considered at all by this Court more particularly since according to the petitioner, the petitioner has very 'candidly' mentioned in his affidavit in rejoinder about the fact of the petition with regard to quashing having been filed herein before and having been withdrawn before this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh would also submit that the law with regard to a second quashing petition is also well settled in as much as according to the learned Advocate Mr. Parikh, a second quashing petition, can be entertained by this Court more particularly there be no bar against filing of a subsequent petition under Section- 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of All India State Bank Officers Federation Through Its President v. Union of India, reported at 1990 (Supp 1) SCC 336 : (AIROnline 1990 SC 76), on basis of which judgment, learned Advocate Mr. Parikh would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court, by way of the said judgment has laid down the law that even in case of suppression of fact, the petition should not be dismissed. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar, I.A.S v. Union of India and others, in Writ Petition (Criminal No. 255/2021) dated 29.06.2021: (Reported in AIROnline 2021 SC 569) and would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has in this decision laid down the law that dismissal of an earlier petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Sec-tion-482.

4.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh would further submit that the reasons for filing of the second quashing petition, has been mentioned in the affidavit in rejoinder preferred by the present petitioner and according to the learned Advocate Mr. Parikh, having regard to the same, this Court may entertain this petition and grant the reliefs as sought for.

5. Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit th