[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Dubey vs Mohd. Sabir on 6 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:774
1 MCRC-6634-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6634 of 2015
SANJAY DUBEY
Versus
MOHD. SABIR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ajay Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This is second M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Earlier M.Cr.C.
No.7612/20024 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated
6.3.2007 and against the said order, the petitioner had filed M.Cr.C.
No.1233/2015 for restoration of M.Cr.C. No.7612/20024. However, this
Court again dismissed the said restoration application. On the same facts and
grounds, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the same relief,
which had been sought in M.Cr.C. No.7612/20024, which is not permissible.
2. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Ravikumar vs.
D.S. Velmurugan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 737 in paragraph Nos. 12 to
14 has held as under:-
"12. At the outset, we may like to note that the submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that
the second quashing petition came to be filed based on new
grounds/pleas, is not tenable on the face of it. From the bare
perusal of the record, it is evident that the second quashing petition
raised no such grounds/pleas which were unavailable to the
accused-respondents at the time of adjudication of the first
quashing petition. The failure of the accused respondents to raise a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:774
2 MCRC-6634-2015
pertinent ground/plea which was tangibly available to them at the
time of adjudication of the first quashing petition can in no
circumstance grant a right to the said accused persons to file a
subsequent quashing petition as it would amount to seeking review
on pre-existing material.
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 UP & Anr. ,
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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:774
3 MCRC-6634-2015
6. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the second M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the same relief is
not maintainable. In light of aforesaid judgment this petition is not
maintainable. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM
