WPCRL/92/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 2296 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/92/2025 on 7 March, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                      Of f ice N ot e s,
                    re port s, or de rs
                    or proce e din gs
SL. N o.   Da t e     or dire ct ion s                                   COURT'S OR JU DGE'S ORDERS
                    a n d Re gist ra r's
                        orde r w it h
                       Sign a t u re s


                                           WPCRL No.92 of 2025
                                           Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Govind S. Latwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Bhaskar C. Joshi, learned AGA with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned B.H. for the State.

3. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for respondent -Bank.

4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for directing respondent nos.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioner and not to adopt any coercive measures against him in relation to FIR dated 27.09.2024 in relation to Case Crime/FIR No.0485 of 2024 u/s 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of B.N.S. registered at P.S. Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar lodged by respondent no.3.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised in the matter by learned Counsel for respondent-Bank that earlier, WPCRL No.1113 of 2024 was filed before this Court very Court assailing the selfsame FIR which is under challenge in this petition. The said petition was dismissed in limine vide judgment dated 15.10.2024. Now, the petitioner seeks protection from being arrested in relation to the said FIR, though on different grounds.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to show any case law under which a second writ petition on the same cause of action is maintainable. He has relied upon a Full Bench Judgment rendered by the Karnatak High Court in the case of 'Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka' reported in 2017 SCC Online Kar 2855.

7. Having gone through the aforesaid authority, this Court finds that the said judgment relates to a habeas corpus petition, wherein, it was held out that a second writ petition, assailing the same detention order based on fresh or new grounds, that were not available when the first writ petition was filed, is maintainable.

8. Here, the facts of the present case are quite different. Hence the judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. The same thus, cannot come in rescue of the petitioner.

9. No other legal ground was argued.

10. The petition fails and the same is dismissed at the threshold itself.

11. Pending application if any stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.03.2025 R.Dang