Vivek Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1535 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1535 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

Vivek Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2024

                        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

                           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4107 of 2024

        ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2605

of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the

offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri B. Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent No.1 - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.10018 of 2022 and the same

was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2023. He

further submitted that as there are changed circumstances, the

petitioner again filed the present Criminal Petition. In this

regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in

Anil Khadkiwala vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi 1 and

prayed to allow the Criminal Petition.

(2019) 17 SCC 294

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

5. In view of the rival submissions of both the learned

counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record.

In Anil Khadkiwala (Supra), the Apex Court at paragraph No.7,

held as under:

"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, 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."

6. A plain reading of the above judgment clearly shows that

there was no bar to the maintainability of a second Petition

under Section 482, Cr.P.C. when the averments in the Petition

were completely distinguishable on its own facts.

7. However, in the instant case, it is pertinent to note that

neither there are any changed circumstances nor there is

difference between the earlier Criminal Petition and the Present

Criminal. The only contention of the petitioner is that in earlier

application this Court has not considered the judgment of

co-ordinate Bench, wherein, in similar circumstances, it allowed

the quash petition. It is pertinent to note that though it is placed

before this Court, the same was not considered as it is violation