Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Jeevan Uttamchandani And … vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 14 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:46039
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2328 of 2026
Rajesh Jeevan Uttamchandani And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Kaushlendra Yadav, Anupriya Srivastava, Om Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Rishabh Raj
Along with:
1. APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2326 of 2026 Rajesh Jeevan Uttamchandani And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
2. APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2324 of 2026 Rajesh Jeevan Uttamchandani And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Reserved on: 02.07.2026 Pronounced & Uploaded on: 14.07.2026
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these applications, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
2. These applications have been filed seeking quashing of the entire and all consequential proceedings pertaining to Complaint Case No.7722 of 2025 (in Application U/s 528 No.2328/26), Complaint Case No.7721 of 2025 (in Application U/s 528 No.2326/25), and Complaint Case No.7723 of 2025 (in Application U/s 528 No.2324/26) filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Hazaratganj, District Lucknow, pending before the Additional Court No.4 (N.I. Act), Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complainant also lodged false and fabricated First Information Report (FIR) No.0215 dated 12.12.2025 under Section 120B, 506, 504, 323, 420 I.P.C. with police station Kaisarbagh, Lucknow alleging that somebody had threatened them and indulged in marpit in Pune, Maharashtra during the period from 01.07.2023 to 23.02.2024. The applicants filed an Application under Section 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026 challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 issuing non bailable warrants and the order dated 19.01.2026 issuing proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C in complaint case no.7722 of 2025 (old Complaint Case No.61459 of 2024) which was allowed and the said orders were quashed. As the applicants were not aware as to how the alleged cheque(s) were returned for insufficient funds, they could not raise the aforesaid grounds.
4. It has been further submitted that applicant no.1, namely, Rajesh Jeevan Uttam Chandani, after filing the aforementioned application under section 528 BNSS has not filed any other application under section 528 BNSS challenging the proceeding of the Complaint Case No.7722 of 2025 and the instant application is second application under section 528 BNSS on new grounds now available. This case number was initially shown as Complaint case No.61549 of 2024 and after this complaint case was transferred to different court, the complaint case number was made as 7722 of 2025 in court of Additional Court No.4 (N.I. Act), Lucknow. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS is the second application of the applicant no.1 Rajesh Jeevan Uttamchandani on entirely new ground which has been recently discovered. The last presentation of the cheque for clearance is only material which has been returned by the bank concerned on the ground that the account has been classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) and is not operative. The instant complaint case is not maintainable on the ground of earlier return of cheque(s) which is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the instant complaint case. The complainant has not clearly mentioned this fact in the complaint and it seems as concealment.
5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.2, namely, Govind Uttamchandani after filing the aforesaid first application under section 528 BNSS along with applicant no.2 bearing number 418 of 2026 against the order of non bailable warrant and the order of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which was allowed, filed another application under section 528 BNSS No.970 of 2026 challenging the cognizance and summoning order dated 12.09.2025 and for quashing of further proceedings of Complaint Case No.7722 of 2025 (old Complaint Case No.61459 of 2024), under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the ground that he was not a signatory of the cheque but this application under section 528 BNSS No.970 of 2026 was not entertained as the same was found not maintainable. Even at this time, the applicants were not aware of the facts mentioned hereinabove, hence, these facts could not be mentioned and no ground on these facts could be raised. Further, it has been submitted that applicant no.2-Govind Uttamchandani is now filing third application under section 528 BNSS on the fresh ground that the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.7722 of 2025 are wholly without jurisdiction and not maintainable as the alleged cheque(s) were not returned due to insufficient funds but were returned for the reason that the concerning Bank account of Union Bank of India was classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 31.03.2024. He submits that the complainant has wrongly alleged in the said complaint case that the cheque(s) were returned due to insufficient funds. The complainant has mentioned that the same cheque earlier presented was returned due to insufficient funds so he again presented these cheque(s) but by this time, the account concern was classified as NPA and was not operative. The last presentation of cheque(s) and the reasons for return is only relevant and material. Moreover, the complainant was also aware of these facts so he has lodged claim to get these amounts before Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and his claim has been enlisted at Serial No.63. The continuance of the said contempt case is wholly abuse of the process of law and this jurisdiction has not been fairly invoked and misrepresentation has been made.
6. His further submission is that the complainant has filed a Complaint Case no.7722 of 2025 under Sections 138 and 142 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 impleading Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. as accused no.1, Rajesh Jeevan Uttam Chandani as accused no.2 and Govind Uttamchandani as accused no.3. Accused no.2 and 3 are applicant No.1 and 2 respectively in the instant case. This complaint case is pending in court of Additional Court No.4 (N.I. Act), Lucknow. The court has taken cognizance of this case and has issued summons against the applicants. The applicants have appeared in this complaint case and their statements have been recorded on 07.05.2026. The next date has been fixed as 30.05.2026. He submits that in Para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has stated ?that the Accused no. 2 (two) and 3 (three) are directors of Syska. They were/are incharge of and responsible for the day to day affairs and business of the Company at the relevant time. They are also the persons with whom the Complainant through Director Mr. Dhruva Chandra used to communicate regarding transactions with Syska with respect to the sale and payment related modalities, etc. Additionally, the accused no. 2 is the signatory of all the cheques in question.?
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the complainant has also lodged a First Information Report dated 12.12.2025 narrating the story with the Police Station Kaisarbagh, Lucknow. He further submits that the details of the post dated cheques, i.e. date of cheque, date of presentation of the cheques and the date of dishonor of cheques has already been given in paragraph 23, 27 and 30 of the complaint. It shows that the cheques were presented to the Bank by the complainant on 29.04.2024, 30.04.2024 and 10.05.2024. These cheques were dishonored on 29.04.2024, 30.04.2024, 01.05.2024 and 13.05.2024. It has been alleged that these cheques were returned by saying that the amount in the account of applicant-Company was insufficient. A charts showing the details of cheques involved in these applications have been filed as Annexure-3 to these applications. Further, it has been submitted that while the applicants were making their statement in the complaint case no.7722 of 2025, they noticed that the Bank Cheques Return slip showing the reasons for returning the cheques has not been filed and this much has been stated that the funds were insufficient. The applicants were of the opinion that there was sufficient funds for clearing the cheques and the same cannot be returned for insufficient funds. A letter was written on behalf of M/s Syska LED Lights Company on 13.5.2026 asking the Bank concerned, i.e. Union Bank of India, Industrial Finance Pune Branch to provide the reasons for cheque bounce pertaining to Promod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. attaching the details of the cheques relating to the complaint case no.7722 of 2025. Thereafter, the said Bank informed the company M/s Siska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. Pune that the account of the company was classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) on 31.03.2024 whereafter the transaction in the account are not being allowed. All the cheques relating to the complaint case no.7722 of 2025 were issued as post dated cheque from this account. As the account of applicants company M/s Siska LED Lights was not allowing any transactions with effect from 31.03.2024 the cheques presented on 29.04.2024, 30.4.2024 and 10.05 2024 by the complainant were bound to be not entertained and there was no question of returning the cheques for insufficient funds.
8. It has been further submitted that the applicants also applied for statement of account as existing on 30.04.2024 which has been supplied showing the balance as Rs.-51,27,03,684 as the company was granted credit limit of Rs.50 Lakhs and to this extent the payment could be made by the Bank. It has also been submitted that Sun Star Industries raised a company petition to realise the dues of the creditors from the asset of the Syska LED Lights on 28.12.2023 in National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench -II. An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was also filed in which moratorium orders were passed on 08.10.2024 prohibiting all recovery from the asset of the Syska LED Light Company. The complainant company has also filed its claim to realise the dues on 24.04.2025. His claim has also been listed at Serial No.63. Further, the applicants had filed first application under Section 528 BNSS against the non bailable warrant and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No.7722 of 2025 before this Court which was registered as Application under Section 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026 on entirely different ground.
9. Further, it has been submitted that applicant no.2-Govind Uttamchandani had filed an application under Section 528 BNSS No.970 of 2026 second time in the complaint case no.7722 of 2026 praying for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case. The said complaint case under Section 198/142 ?.?. Act is not maintainable and the cheque(s) of the complainant could not be cleared the same was returned but the same cannot be treated as returned for insufficient funds. He submits that Section 138 N.I. Act contemplates that in the event the cheque is returned by the Bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds to the amount arranged to be paid from that account, such persons shall be deemed to have committed an offence. It is apparent that the applicants have not committed any offence as the account had become inoperative under the provisions of law and the same could not be honored.
10. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant has filed above noted complaint case alleging return of 24 cheque(s) by the cheque issuing Bank i.e. UNION BANK OF INDIA, Industrial Financial Pune Branch, Pune for the reasons “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant had moved an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the above noted case covering 24 cheque(s) contending that there is only one day delay which has been condoned without discussing the material documents and the facts stated in the complaint as well as without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicants-accused. The order dated 08.11.2024 condoning the delay in filing the complaint has been passed on the basis of the request that in the event the complaint is not entertained the complainant would become remediless. He submits that it appears that the said complaint case was initially filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 6th, Room No.30, Lucknow with an application for condonation of delay in filing complaint which was marked as paper no.A-3/63 and was put up before the said court on 08.11.2024. In the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint it was stated that the limitation for filing the complaint subsisted till 04.07.2024 as one month time from 05.06.2024 to make payment expired and as such one day delay be condoned. The court however did not consider these facts on the basis of record and condoned the delay as the complainant would suffer irreparable loss. It is submitted that the facts narrated in the delay condonation application is not correct.
11. His further submission is that the amount paid by the Unity Finance Bank Limited was recorded as loan payable by the complainant, hence when the complainant failed to repay the loan amount, the Bank issued notice to classify the Bank account of the complainant as NPA (Non Performing Assets). The complainant then filed a Civil Suit No.127 of 2024 in the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow alleging that the liability to repay the amount was resting on the applicants accused and as such the action of the Bank was in breach of the said agreement. It was also alleged that the applicants-accused have issues post dated cheque as security to the said payment. The said Commercial Court passed orders on 05.11.2024 on the application for interim relief/interim injunction holding that the liability of repayment was on the complainant. This case is still pending.
12. It has been submitted that the complainant thereafter filed a case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the aforesaid order of the commercial court which was registered as Matters Under Article 227 No.3103 of 2024-Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Court and others. The applicants-accused were also impleaded in the array of respondents. The applicants-accused fairly stated that although there was no legally enforceable rights in favour of the complainant and as the concern account of the applicants has been classified as NPA, the applicants arranged the money from other sources and paid to the complainant. Initially an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- (Seventy Five Lakh) was paid and on that basis, the Court passed interim orders restraining the concerning Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. from taking any coercive steps against the complainant. The applicants paid Rs.1.5 Crore and accordingly the matter was finally disposed of directing the commercial court to decide the injunction application expeditiously.
13. Learned counsel further submits that as the complainant alleged in the complaint that the security cheque(s) were returned by the paying Bank, Union Bank of India, Industrial Finance Pune Branch, Pune as there was insufficient funds and the applicants were under the impression that there was sufficient funds in the concerned account and there was also a sanctioned credit limit to the extent of Rs.60 lacs, the cheque(s) could not have been dishonored for insufficient funds. Hence the applicants wrote a letter to the said paying Bank asking the reasons for dishonoring the said 24 cheque(s) on 13the May 2026. The Union Bank of India informed the applicants that the concerning account relating to the said 24 cheque(s) was classified as NPA (Non-performing Asset) on 31.03.2024, hence, with effect from this date, the transactions in this account are not allowed.
14. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged date of return of the cheque is 13.04.2024 and the entire amount has been paid by applicants on 06.07.2025, 25.10.2024, 12.11.2024, 20.02.2026 and 04.04 2026 from other sources as the concerned account was classified as NPA. It is further submitted that the Unity Small Scale Finance Bank Ltd. has also settled the entire outstanding by waiving off a big amount of Rs.11,27,890/- and issued a No Dues Certificate to the complainant. As the entire matter has been amicably settled there is no purpose to continue with the complaint case.
15. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Shri Vijay Chaudhary vs. Shri Gyan Chand Jain: Criminal M.C. No.1328 of 2007, decided on 6.5.2008; M/s. Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. And others vs. M/s. R.D. Sales: Criminal M.C. No.1326 of 2025, decided on 5.6.2025; and Raj Kumar Jain vs. M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises and another: 2026:DHC:3763.
16. Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I has raised a preliminary objection that earlier the applicants had filed Application U/s 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026 and all grounds which are taken in the present applications were available but no prayer was made for quashing the proceedings, rather Application U/s 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026 was filed with a prayer to quash the non bailable warrant. On the statement given by the applicants that they will cooperate in the trial, non bailable warrant was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to proceed in the case. Applicant-Govind Uttamchandani filed Application U/s 528 BNSS No.963 of 2026 in which he made a prayer for quashing of entire proceedings and the summoning order. The same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.3.2026. Govind Uttamchandani, the applicant no.2 had thereafter filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.7434-7436/2026 before the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by this Court, which is pending, but the statement has not been made in the application that he had filed the SLP before the Supreme Court which is pending. Learned AGA-I submits that the applications are suffering from material concealment of fact, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the judgment rendered in the case of Govind Uttamchandani, applicant no.2 in Application U/s 528 BNSS No.963 of 2026 holds the field and these applications are also liable to be dismissed.
17. Sri Rishabh Raj, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, has also supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the State by learned AGA-I. He has also taken a preliminary objection that the present applications are the second applications filed under Section 528 of BNSS because earlier the applicants had filed Application U/s 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026 making a prayer that all the consequential proceedings arising out of Complaint Case no.7723 of 2025 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act may be quashed though he had all the factual and legal pleas available at the time of filing of the aforesaid applications. It is also pointed out that in Para 18 of Application U/s 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026, the applicants have categorically mentioned that they are ready to face and cooperate in the trial. It has been submitted that once such statement of fact has been given, then the applicants cannot resile back from their own statement and filing of the second applications for the same cause of action is not maintainable. For the sake of convenience, Para 18 of the Application U/s 528 BNSS No.418 of 2026 is quoted hereinbelow:
?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.?
18. Sri Rishabh Raj has also pointed out the prayer clause of Application U/s 528 BNSS No.419 of 2026, which reads as under:
?… 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.”
19. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2024) 15 SCC 282, and M.C. Ravikumar Vs. D.S. Velmurugan and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498.
20. I have heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, appearing for the applicants, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Rishabh Raj, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, and perused the material available on record.
21. The Madras High Court in the case of S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunana, 2006(1) MWN (Cr.) 1 (DDC), 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 applicants 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 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.?
22. 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 judgment 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 another under Section 482CrPC, irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.?
23. The 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 judgment 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.?
24. In the case of Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2019) 17 SCC 294, 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 applicant was heard and decided. Paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment 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, 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.?
25. This Court in the case of Kamal Agarwal (M.D.) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7847 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 judgment 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 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.?
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the applicants had approached this Court under Section 528 BNSS making a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings. All the pleas were available to them, but they 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 applicants have 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 they have 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 applicants at the time of filing of the earlier application, but they did not press the same and they had also given a statement of fact in paragraph-18 of the earlier application that they 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 of 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 applicants at the time of filing of the earlier application. In fact, the applicants had also made prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in the earlier application also. Thus, the case of the applicants is fully covered with the cases of Bhisham Lal Verma (supra) and M.C. Ravikumar (supra) and amounts to abuse of process of the court, therefore, the second applications for the same cause of action are not maintainable.
27. The applicants are filing 528 BNSS applications one after another as mentioned above for the same relief. The disputed question of fact as raised in the applications, second time in respect of applicant no.1 and third time in respect of applicant no.2 cannot be appreciated and this Court cannot do mini trial or weigh the evidences under Section 528 BNSS.
28. Before parting from the case, it is relevant to be noted here that applicant no.2-Govind Uttamchandani has approached third time before this Court with the same prayer to quash the entire proceedings. He had filed second Application U/s 528 BNSS of 963 of 2026 which was decided on 17.3.2026 and thereafter he challenged the said order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.7434-7436 of 2026 in which notice has been issued and opposite party no.2 has appeared but this fact has not been mentioned in the present applications. The act of applicant no.2 is deprecated. He has filed these applications by concealing the fact that he had earlier filed applications.
29. In view of above, these applications are devoid of merit. They are accordingly dismissed.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
July 14, 2026
Sachin
