A subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained even if an earlier petition was rejected, but only if there is a significant change in circumstances.

1. The instant second misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the validity of the F.I.R. No. 154/2006 registered at the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 191 of the I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Bhikha Ram filed an F.I.R. through a complaint forwarded to the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for investigation by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the accused persons created a Will by appending forged thumb impressions of late Choutha Ram (the owner of the property) and thereby created a forged valuable security in their favour. Upon registration of the F.I.R., the accused approached this Court by way of a S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 390/2009 seeking quashing of the F.I.Rs. This Court considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the aforesaid misc. petition and decided the same by the order dated 10.3.2010. Some relevant portions of the order dated 10.3.2010 are quoted hereinbelow:

"Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material including F.I.R. No. 154/2006, it is noticed that this F.I.R. came to be registered by the police on a complaint having been sent by Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. The investigation of the case is still said to have been pending. It is alleged that the petitioners forged a 'Will' with a view to grab the property of late Chautha Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that both the parties have compromised and settled all the disputes pending in different Courts. Hence, in view of the same, the F.I.R. may be quashed.

E converso, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that during investigation, the 'Will' has been found to have been forged by the petitioners and the case is still pending investigation, which does not deserve to be quashed.

... A bare reading of the F.I.R. reveals tangibly that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 were, prima facie, made out. As per the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, the police also found the 'Will' to have been forged by the petitioners. Albeit, the case is pending investigation and final opinion has not yet been given, however, it is not a case wherein the contents of the F.I.R. do not disclose any commission of cognizable offence. Merely because the parties have compromised, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed on this ground if the contents of the F.I.R. do disclose commission of a cognizable offence. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and to my firm view, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed."

3. Significantly enough, this Court took note of the fact that during investigation, the Will in question was found to be forged upon its examination by the F.S.L. It was also observed that merely because the parties allegedly compromised the matter, the F.I.R. could not be quashed on that ground too. Accordingly, the misc. petition filed by the petitioners was rejected on merits.

4. The petitioners however did not rest satisfied with the rejection of earlier petition and just a few months after the rejection of the first misc. petition, this second misc. petition has been preferred by them seeking quashing of the very F.I.R., the validity whereof was examined and upheld by this Court earlier. Two grounds were principally averred in both the misc. petitions in support of the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. Firstly it was claimed that the matter is essentially of a civil nature and thus, the F.I.R. impugned should be quashed and secondly, it was submitted that the parties had compromised the matter and therefore also, the F.I.R. was fit to be quashed.

5. A notice of this petition was issu