JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 152/2014 registered with Shyam Nagar, Police Station, Jaipur (south) for offences under Section 120, 120B, 409, 461, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. The main ground of challenge is that statutory provisions were not complied before registration of FIR and the FIR discloses no offence against the petitioner.

The petitioner was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of Vaishali Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Jaipur from the year 1998 to 2004 and again from 2006 to 26.6.2009. The said society was registered under The Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. The society had permission/licence from Reserve Bank of India under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to commence banking business. From time to time, inspection of the society was made by the Reserve Bank of India. Financial mismanagement and other deficiencies were recorded in the reports dated 6.2.2003 and 11.1.2003. When anomalies were not removed nor financial status of the society was improved, on direction of the Reserve Bank of India, banking facilities of the society was withdrawn and in the year 2009, the Board of Directors was superseded and an administrator was appointed to look after affairs of the society. On 13.1.2012, the Additional Registrar of Co-operative societies conducted an inquiry under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and made several recommendations to take action against office bearers of the society for recovery of the mismanaged amount and side by side recommendation was made for institution of FIR against erring officers and employees of the society. Accordingly, impugned FIR was registered.

3. The present status of the criminal case is that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and his wife, whereas, against other named co-accused, a closure report has been submitted vide charge-sheet No. 105 dated 15.7.2022. The FIR contains allegation of defalcation of rupees six crore seventy one lakh twenty thousand eight hundred and sixty five (Rs.6,71,20,865/-). The report of the respondent dated 13.1.2012 was challenged in an appeal under Section 104 of the Act. The petitioner sought for permission of the Registrar for deposit of the aforesaid amount along with his undertaking at Annexure-6. Permission was granted vide order dated 5.12.2018 and communication to this effect was made to the petitioner on 18.12.2018 and the petitioner deposited entire amount which was due of the creditors/depositors.

4. Preliminary objection of the respondents, especially respondent No.2 who is complainant of the FIR is that the petitioner had moved earlier this Court for quashing of the same FIR in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 517/2015 and the said Misc. Petition was disposed of on 5.9.2017 with the following orders:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to take up all the pleas available to him before the trial court at the time of framing of charges. Ordered accordingly.”

5. The respondents are of the view that once the High Court had rejected the petition for quashing the proceedings, it was not competent for the High Court to entertain another petition for the same purpose as that would amount to review of its earlier order which the High Court has no jurisdiction to do.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atul Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. 2019 (17) SCC 299 & Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 705 in support of his submission that entertainment of second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for the same cause would amount to review of the earlier order passed on the same prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

On the facts of this case, though these judgments are not helping the respondents as the Court