A second application under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashment is not maintainable without new material or changed circumstances from previous proceedings.

ORDER

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed for quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in S.T. No.728/2014 in the Court of Special Judge (CBI), (Vyapam) cum Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that applicant No.1 had filed Criminal Revision No.1865/2020 and applicant No.2 had filed Criminal Revision No.1916/2020 against the order framing charges. On 17.10.2024, applicants, after arguing the criminal revisions at length, sought permission to raise all the grounds before the appropriate Court at appropriate stage in accordance with law, and accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court on 17.10.2024 passed the following orders :

Cr.R. No.1865/2020 :

“1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, prayed i. That, record of the trial court may be called.

ii. That, the revision petition may be allowed.

iii. That, impugned order may be set aside.

iv. That, the application u/s 227 may be allowed. v. That, impugned charges may be quashed.

vi. That, petitioners may be discharged.

vii. That, any other order as may be deemed fit may kindly be passed."

2. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of this petition with liberty to raise all the grounds before the appropriate Court at appropriate stage in accordance with law.

3. Prayer allowed.

4. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”

Cr.R. No.1916/2020

“1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, prayed

i. That, record of the trial court may be called.

ii. That, the revision petition may be allowed.

iii. That, impugned order may be set aside.

iv. That, the application u/s 227 may be allowed. v. That, impugned charges may be quashed.

vi. That, petitioners may be discharged.

vii. That, any other order as may be deemed fit may kindly be passed."

2. After arguing at length, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of this petition with liberty to raise all the grounds before the appropriate Court at appropriate stage in accordance with law.

3. Prayer allowed.

4. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”

3. The counsel for applicants referred to judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and others , reported in (1975) 3 SCC 706, and submitted that this application for quashment of proceedings on the changed circumstances is maintainable. It is submitted that criminal trial has not reached to a logical end. It is submitted that the revisions which were filed by the applicants were withdrawn, and since they were not decided on merits, therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, and accordingly, it is submitted that this second application for quashment of proceedings is maintainable.

4. Per contra, counsel for respondent/CBI, submitted that this second application is not maintainable, but in spite of repeated requests by the Court, he did not cite any judgment in this regard.

5. Before considering the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is necessary for this Court to consider as to whether the second application for the similar relief is maintainable or not ?

6. In the case of Mohan Singh (supra), the first application filed by the aspirant und