A second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if based on changed circumstances, despite a previous application being withdrawn.

JUDGMENT :

Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the applications, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement.

2. By means of the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Applicant/Kamal Agrawal of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9706 of 2025 and the Applicant/Satya Prakash Tiwari of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9802 of 2025 have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./ Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow (in short “trial Court”) in Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024 (Shadab Ahmad Vs. Om Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others), Police Station – Gomti Nagar Extension, District – Lucknow whereby the application seeking discharge has been rejected. Prayer has also been sought for quashing the impugned bailable warrant order dated 18.10.2025, the impugned summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024 as well as entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Complainant that the present applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable for the reason that the Applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing an application i.e. APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4525 of 2025 in re: OAM Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Kamal Agarwal and Another Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko. and Another which was decided on 28.05.2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein it is observed that after arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the Applicants submits that he does not want to press this petition and seeks liberty to move an application for discharge through counsel before the trial court and the same may be decided by the learned trial Court in a time bound manner. The co-ordinate Bench directed the Applicants to move an appropriate application for discharge through counsel before the concerned Court within a period of fifteen days from date of order and direction was issued that the trial Court will take decision within a period of two months in accordance with law.

4. Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Complainant has further submitted that the application seeking discharge preferred by the Applicants was rejected on the ground that the application seeking discharge in the complaint case was not maintainable that is why discharge application was rejected.

5. She has further submitted that once the application seeking discharge was rejected as not maintainable, it is not open for the Applicants to move second application challenging the impugned summoning order dated 17.02.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings. She has further submitted that the Applicants had already made aforesaid prayer in the first application i.e. APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4525 of 2025, therefore, the second application is not maintainable in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498. She has relied on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment.

6. She has further relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. , reported in (2024) 15 SCC 282.

7. On the other hand, Shri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants had earlier filed the application i.e. APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4525 of 2025 challenging the impugned summo