# Govind Uttamchandani Director Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1011
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-17
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 963 of 2026
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-uttamchandani-director-syska-led-lights-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54236
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

3 All. Govind Uttamachandani Director Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1011
(2026) 3 ILRA 1011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 963 of 2026
longwith
Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 969 of 2026
alongwith
Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 970 of 2026

Govind Uttamchandani Director Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether successive applications under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of impugned complaint
proceedings are maintainable when earlier relief was confined to setting aside coercive orders and applicant
had undertaken to face trial?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - section - 84, 528, - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - section - 138, 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - section 82: -
Multiple Applications u/s 528 BNSS - for seeking quashing of entire proceedings and summoning orders
- preliminary objection regarding subsequent applications for the same cause of action is not maintainable -
in earlier application court had already set aside the NBW and Sec. 82 Cr.P.C. orders with applicant's
undertaking to face trial - Successive petitions under Sec. 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. - Scope of inherent powers of
High Court - Quashing of impugned NI Act complaint proceedings - effect of prior undertaking to face trial -
Abuse of process of court - applicant pleaded that subsequent challenge was permissible under inherent
powers - opposite parties objected citing bar on successive petitions - Court finds that all pleas were available
earlier, no changed circumstance, and applicant cannot resile from his own statement - held - successive
petitions amount to abuse of process and as such second application for the same cause of action is not
maintainable - consequently, all the three applications are rejected being not maintainable and interim order
vacated.
Applications Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. (2024) 15 SCC 282
M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498
S. Madan Kumar v. K. Arjunana 2006 (1) MWN (Cr.) 1 (DCC)
Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 17 SCC 294
Kamal Agarwal v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine All 7847
Vinod Kumar, IAS v. Union of India 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559
Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh (1975) 3 SCC 706

LIST OF ACTS
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Second application - Quashing - NI Act - Non-bailable warrant - Proclamation - Successive petitions -
Undertaking to cooperate - Maintainability - Abuse of process - Complaint case - Summoning order -
rejected - vacated.

CASE ARISING FROM
Complaint Cases Nos. 7721, 7722, 7723 of 2025 filed by Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. against Syska LED Light
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. under Sec. 138/142 NI Act, pending before Additional Court (NI Act), Lucknow.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, Sr. Advocate assisted by Richa Mishra, Radhika Singh.
Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A., Rishabh Raj; AGA-1 Rao Narendra Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in all the three applications,
therefore, they are being heard and decided together by a common judgement.

2. Application U/s 528 BNSS No.963 of 2026 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.7723 of 2025, Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syska LED Light
Private Limited and others, under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police
Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2(NI Act), Lucknow.

3. Application U/s 528 BNSS No.969 of 2026 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.7721 of 2025, Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syska LED Light
Private Limited and others, under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police
Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2(NI Act), Lucknow.

4. Application U/s 528 BNSS No.970 of 2026 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.7722 of 2025, Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syska LED Light
Private Limited and others, under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police
Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2 (NI Act), Lucknow.

5. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Rishabh Raj, counsel
for opposite party no.2 that present applications are the second applications under Section 528
BNSS because earlier the applicant had filed Application U/s 528 BNSS No.419 of 2026 making a
prayer that all the consequential proceedings arising out of the Complaint Case No.7723 of 2025,
under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act may be quashed though he had
available all the factual and legal pleas at the time of filing of the aforesaid application. It is also
pointed out that in paragraph-18 of Application U/s 528 BNSS No.419 of 2026, the applicant has
categorically mentioned that he is ready to face and cooperate in the trial. It is submitted that once
such statement of fact has been given, he cannot resile back from his own statement and filing of
the second application for the same cause of action is not maintainable. Fro the sake of
convenience, paragraph-18 of Application U/s 528 BNSS No.419 of 2026 is quoted below:-
3 All. Govind Uttamachandani Director Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1013
 "18. That the mandate of Section 143(3) NI Act, 1881 is for the conclusion of the trial
early but with due procedure. In the instant case, cognizance has been taken on 12.09.2025, as
such, there is no contribution for the delay on the accused persons. Needless to mention that trial
begins after framing of charges, applicants undertake to cooperate with the trial and will abide by
all conditions so that trial could be decided expeditiously with due process of law and within the
procedure of BNSS 2023. The Learned Trial Court has wrongly interpreted the order of the
Hon'ble High Court, and taking the note of order passed by this Hon'ble High Court, had issued
NBW and Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which is contrary to the provisions of
Cr.P.C./BNSS as well as contrary to the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court."

6. While considering the submission made by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2, it
is also relevant to quote the prayer made in the earlier application i.e. Application U/s 528 BNSS
No.419 of 2026:-

 ".. It is most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
application preferred under section 528 BNSS, 2023 may kindly be allowed and the Impugned
Order dated 12.01.2026 for Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and Order dated 19.01.2026 for
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings (corresponding section 84
BNSS) passed by Learned Court of Additional Court No.4 (NI Act), Lucknow, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 7723 of 2025 under section 138 read
with 142 of NI Act, PS: Hazratganj, Lucknow (Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Versus Syska LED Light
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors), pending before Learned Court of Additional Court No.4 (NI Act), Lucknow, may
kindly be quashed/set-aside in the interest of justice."

7. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that a bare perusal of the prayer
made in the earlier application indicates that though the prayer made in the present application and
in the earlier application is the same, but counsel for the applicant has confined his prayer only to
the extent that non-bailable warrant and the order for initiating proceedings under Section 82
Cr.P.C. may be set aside and the applicant may be permitted to appear before the trial court. The
relevant portion of the order passed in Application U/s 528 BNSS No.419 of 2026 reads as under:-

 "16. Be that as it may, the record reveals that the Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued
without service on the accused. Bailable Warrant was issued on 05.01.2026 fixing date 12.01.2026.
Without any service report the Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on 12.01.2026 fixing date
19.01.2026. There is also no service report to the effect that Non-Bailable Warrant was served on
the applicant. It is also relevant to be noted that on 19.01.2026 the coercive order under Section
82, Cr.P.C. has been issued and at the same time Non-Bailable Warrant has also been issued,
which is in violation of Section 82, Cr.P.C., wherein the time-limit is provided, i.e., 30 days, and
also the case of the applicants is covered by the cases of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra)
and Vinod Kumar Singh (supra).

 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed. Order dated
12.01.2026 for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and Order dated 19.01.2026 for Issuance of
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings (corresponding section 84 BNSS) passed by
Learned Court of Additional Court No.4 (NI Act), Lucknow, in Complaint Case No. 7723 of 2025
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under section 138 read with 142 of NI Act, PS: Hazratganj, Lucknow (Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
Versus Syska LED Light Pvt. Ltd. & Ors), are hereby quashed/set-aside.

 18. The applicants will appear before the court below within 10 days from today and the
court below will pass appropriate order on the application of the applicants.

 19. It is made clear that parties will cooperate in the proceedings and they will not seek
adjournment, unless necessary.

 20. The trial court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible."

8. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that once all the pleas and the
documents were available to the applicant, he could have pressed the relief in the earlier
application, but he cannot be allowed to file a second application raising the same pleas, which he
did not press in the earlier application. He has further submitted that applicant did not intentionally
press the other part of the prayer in the earlier application for quashing the entire proceedings
because he wanted to surrender before the trial court and pleaded that since the non-bailable
warrant and the order for initiating 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings have been issued on the same date,
which was illegal.

9. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that once the statement has been
given by the applicant in the earlier application that he will face the trial, it is not open for him to
challenge the same criminal proceedings by way of second application under Section 528 BNSS. In
support of his contention, counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the following
judgements:-

 1. Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2024) 15 SCC 282;

 2. M.C. Ravikumar Vs. D.S. Velmurugan and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498.

10. On the other hand, Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Radhika Singh and Ms. Richa Mishra for the applicant has submitted that since the non-bailable
warrant and the order for initiating the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. could not have been
passed on the same day, the applicant has pressed the relief only to that extent in the earlier
application and this Court was pleased to set aside the same being illegal. He has further submitted
that all the other pleas for quashing the criminal proceedings, including the summoning order, the
applicant has got his legal right to challenge the same even second time.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that as soon as the non-bailable warrant
and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are set aside and the applicant appeared before the
trial court, it is deemed that applicant has appeared before the trial court and after getting copy of
the summoning order and other documents and he can file the second application, therefore, there is
no abuse of process of law. It is submitted that opportunity to the applicant for seeking quashing of
the criminal proceedings cannot be closed. Further, statement of fact given in paragraph-18 of
Application U/s 528 BNSS No.419 of 2026 will not bar the applicant to raise the legal and factual
3 All. Govind Uttamachandani Director Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1015
pleas before this Court because under Section 528 BNSS, this Court has got inherent power to meet
out the ends of justice. For the sake of convenience, Section 528 BNSS is quoted below:-

 "528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

 Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

12. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the
following judgements:-

 1. S. Madan Kumar Vs. K. Arjunana, 2006 (1) MWN (Cr.) 1 (DCC);

 2. Anil Khadkiwala Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2019) 17
SCC 294;

 3. Kamal Agarwal (M.D.) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine All
7847;

 4. Vinod Kumar, IAS Vs. Union of India and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559;

 5. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh
and others, (1975) 3 SCC 706.

13. Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-1 appearing for the State-opposite party no.1
has adopted the arguments raised by counsel for opposite party no.2.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. The Madras High Court in the case of S. Madan Kumar (supra) has considered the
aspect of subsequent filing of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it has been held that a
person while invoking the provision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should honestly come before the
Court submitting all the pleas available to him at that point of time. He is not supposed to approach
the Court with installment pleas seeking the same remedy from the Court. However, there is
distinction provided that there may be change of circumstances during the course of criminal
proceedings which would give scope for the person aggrieved to knock the door of the Court, but in
the present case, all the pleas were available to the applicant and the prayer was also made to the
effect that the entire criminal proceedings should be quashed. Paragraphs 9, 13 and 14 of the
aforesaid judgement are quoted below:-

 "9. In this case, the accused was aware of the alleged lack of pleadings in the complaint
even at the time of receiving the summons from the Court on taking the case on file. At least when
the accused filed a petition earlier under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
alleged non observance of the legal requirement under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act in the complaint was known to him. He had conveniently omitted to take such a legal plea when
he filed the petition earlier under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 13. A person, who invokes the provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should honestly come before the Court submitting all the pleas available to him at that
point of time. He is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment pleas seeking remedy from
the Court. There may be change of circumstances during the course of criminal proceedings which
would give scope for the person aggrieved to knock at the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, but
when he is posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he cannot withhold part of it for
the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the very same relief.

 14. In this case, the petitioner who had already entered on trial filed the second petition
invoking the provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without any change of
circumstances. If such petitions are entertained, there will be no end for the litigations and the
parties will definitely start misusing the process of law. In view of the above, it is held that the
second petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting forth a legal
plea, when the factual plea projected in the earlier petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was rejected, is found not sustainable."

16. The matter of S. Madan Kumar (supra) went to the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case
of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) and Hon'ble Supreme Court has also expressed agreement in
respect of the judgement passed in S. Madan Kumar (supra) and has observed that a person who
invokes Section 482 Cr.P.C. should honestly come before the Court raising all the legal and factual
pleas available to him at the time of filing the application and he cannot file successive application
on the same question of fact and he cannot withhold the part of which for the purpose of filing
second application seeking the same relief subsequently. Paragraphs of 10 and 11 of the aforesaid
judgement are quoted below:-

 "10. In S. Madan Kumar v. K. Arjunan [S. Madan Kumar v. K. Arjunan, 2006 SCC
OnLine Mad 94 : (2006) 1 MWN (Cri) DCC 1] , the Madras High Court observed that a person
who invokes Section 482CrPC should honestly come before the Court raising all the pleas
available to him at that point of time and he is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment
pleas. It was further observed that there may be a change of circumstances during the course of
criminal proceedings which would give scope for the person aggrieved to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction of the Court, but when he is posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he
cannot withhold part of it for the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the same relief.

 11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the Madras High Court.
Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482CrPC
would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the
individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482CrPC, though all such pleas were very much
available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section
482CrPC ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the
proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after
3 All. Govind Uttamachandani Director Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1017
another under Section 482CrPC, irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of
process cannot be permitted."

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of filing of the subsequent
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of M.C. Ravikumar (supra) and it has been
observed that the order passed by the High Court in the second quashing petition amounted to
review of the earlier order passed by the coordinate Bench of the High Court in first quashing
petition. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgement are extracted below:-

 "13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that it is not open to an accused person
to raise one plea after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available to him even at the first
instance. We may hasten to add that there is no sweeping rule to the effect that a second quashing
petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable and its maintainability will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. However, the onus to show that there arose a change in
circumstances warranting entertainment of a subsequent quashing petition would be on the person
filing the said petition. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the observations made by this
Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP18, which are extracted below for ready
reference:-

 "11. ...Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the
other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though all such
pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive
petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to
effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one
petition after another under Section 482 Cr. P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose.
Such abuse of process cannot be permitted"

 14. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court in the
second quashing petition amounted to review (plain and simple) of the earlier order passed by the
co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition, since there was admittedly no
change in circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became available to the accused-respondents,
after passing of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition. The order passed by the High
Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review of a
judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error."

18. In the case of Anil Khadkiwala (supra), there was changed circumstance because
Form-32 did not fall for consideration by the Court in earlier application. The factum of resignation
was not in dispute, therefore, the subsequent application filed by the petitioner was heard and
decided. Paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-

 "7. The complaint filed by respondent no.2 alleges issuance of the cheques by the
appellant as Director on 15.02.2001 and 28.02.2001. The appellant in his reply dated 31.08.2001,
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the statutory notice, had denied answerability in view of his resignation on 20.01.2001. This fact
does not find mention in the complaint. There is no allegation in the complaint that the cheques
were post-dated. Even otherwise, the appellant had taken a specific objection in his earlier
application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. that he had resigned from the Company on 20.01.2001 and
which had been accepted. From the tenor of the order of the High Court on the earlier occasion it
does not appear that Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies was brought on record in
support of the resignation. The High Court dismissed the quashing application without considering
the contention of the appellant that he had resigned from the post of the Director of the Company
prior to the issuance of the cheques and the effect thereof in the facts and circumstances of the
case. The High Court in the fresh application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. initially was therefore
satisfied to issue notice in the matter after noticing the Form 32 certificate. Naturally there was a
difference between the earlier application and the subsequent one, inasmuch as the statutory Form
32 did not fall for consideration by the Court earlier. The factum of resignation is not in dispute
between the parties. The subsequent application, strictly speaking, therefore cannot be said to a
repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances."

19. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar, IAS (supra) while considering
the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal (supra) has held
that second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not barred if there is circumstance to justify
the case. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-

 "The law on point as held by this Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and others, (1975) 3 SCC 706 is clear that dismissal of an
earlier 482 petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section 482, in case the facts
so justify."

20. This Court in the case of Kamal Agarwal (supra) has permitted the applicant to
withdraw the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to move an application seeking
discharge through counsel before the trial court. The applicant in pursuance of the direction dated
28.05.2025 filed an application seeking discharge, but the same was rejected by the trial court on
the ground that it was not maintainable and seeking discharge could not have been heard by the
trial Court in complaint case. In the aforesaid case, there was changed circumstance for the reason
that applicants were relegated to the trial court to avail the remedy of moving an application
seeking discharge. Thus, fresh cause of action arose and that is why the second application was
entertained. Paragraph-21 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-

 "21. After going through the records, it is apparent that the Applicants had earlier challenged
the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024 in
earlier application i.e. APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4525 of 2025 before this Court, and this Court
permitted the Applicants to withdraw the said application and to move application seeking discharge
through counsel before the trial Court. The Applicants, in pursuance of the direction dated 28.05.2025,
filed an application seeking discharge, but the same was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that it
was not maintainable and seeking discharge could not have been heard by the trial Court in complaint
cases. The Applicants have filed the present applications challenging the impugned summoning order as
well as the entire criminal proceedings, which were challenged by them earlier. It is evident that the
3 All. Rajeev Gupta Complaint Case Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1019
Applicants were relegated to the trial Court to avail the remedy of moving application seeking
discharge, however, the said remedy is legally not maintainable, therefore, merit of the case was not
decided. The cause which they espoused was not looked into, and no order on merit was passed. Since the
application seeking discharge was rejected on the ground of maintainability, it is a changed circumstance,
and the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in view of the law declared by the
Supreme Court in the case of Muskan Enterprises and Another (Supra), Anil Khadkiwala (Supra) and
Bhisham Lal Verma (Supra). It is held that the present second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed
is maintainable."

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that applicant had approached this Court
under Section 528 BNSS making a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings. All the pleas
were available to him, but he did not press the relief for quashing the criminal proceedings and only
requested to set aside the orders issuing non-bailable warrant and for initiation of proceedings
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The applicant has again come before this Court by way of filing second
application under Section 528 BNSS making the same prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceedings and he has tried to address the Court that it is a changed circumstance. In fact, there is no
changed circumstance. All the legal and factual pleas were available to the applicant at the time of filing the
earlier application, but he did not press the same and he had also given a statement of fact in paragraph-18 of
the earlier application that he wanted to face the trial. The law is settled that a person who invokes the
provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS should honestly come before the Court at the time of filing the
application and he is not supposed to approach the Court with installment pleas. From the date of earlier
rejection order dated 11.02.2026 till today, there is no changed circumstance and all the factual and legal
pleas were available to the applicant at the time of filing the earlier application. In fact, the applicant had also
made prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in the earlier application also. Therefore, the applicant
cannot be allowed to withhold part of which for the purpose of filing yet another application seeking the
same relief. Thus, the case of the applicant is fully covered with the cases of Bhisham Lal Verma and M.C.
Ravikumar (supra) and amounts to abuse of process of the court, therefore, the second application for the
same cause of action is not maintainable.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the three applications are rejected being not
maintainable. Interim order stands vacated.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1019
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 4766 of 2012
Alongwith other cases

Rajiv Gupta Complaint Case ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties