A successive petition for quashing under Section 528 BNSS (or Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is not maintainable when it seeks the same relief sought in an earlier dismissed petition without any subsequent change in circumstances, as this would violate the bar on reviewing final orders.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-13) passed by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi whereby the petitioner has been declared as "Absconder from Law" in F.I.R. No. 182 dated 10.05.2013 for offences under Section 406, 420, IPC Police Station Zirakpur District S.A.S. Nagar Annexure P-1) and further quashing of all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

2. Vide order dated 07.07.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had questioned the maintainability of the present petition since the prayer for quashing of the impugned order has already been dismissed on merits by the Coordinate Bench on 19.08.2021, for which learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to address the arguments.

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab , (SC), 2024 INSC 1046 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2680202; and submits that a subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.

4. Learned State counsel has rebutted the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and vehemently opposed the present petition. He submits that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner with same prayer was dismissed and the petitioner after a lapse of more than 4 years has again filed the present petition without any change is circumstance. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Before delving into 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 same relief is maintainable or not ?

6. Initially, the petitioner had filed petition bearing no. CRM-M-28364-2021 against the order whereby he was declared as Absconder from law in case FIR No.182 dated 10.05.2016 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar. The said petition was dismissed on merits. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below:

“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the trial proceedings were well within the knowledge of the petitioner, who disengaged himself voluntarily and never applied for exemption from his personal appearance. The argument that his mother was not well, who passed away in June, 2021 is of no help to the petitioner, as after his absence, the petitioner had applied for pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.12.2019 directed the accused to put an appearance before the trial Corut within 7 days and it was further ordered that if the accused appears, he be released on interim regular bail.

Learned counsel is unable to furnish any explanation as why the concession granted by Addl. Sessions Judge, through order dated 17.12.2019 was not availed. Further, learned counsel has also not explained the long delay in challenging the order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1).

Resultantly, no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Dismissed.”

Now, by filing the present petition, petitioner has prayed for same relief on same grounds.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. , 2023 SCC Online SC 1399 has held as under:

“9. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Amicus Curiae, would however point out that entertainment of the second petition in Mohan Singh [State of W.B. v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 156] was held per