Alisher vs State of U.P.

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel and the learned A.G.A. The present applicant had moved an earlier Crl. Application No. 1645 of 1998 u/s 482, Cr. P.C. which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.6.1998. Perused the aforesaid records.

For the same reliefs, the present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has again been filed by the same applicant on 23.7.1998. It was argued that the earlier order was not recorded on merits and, as such, the bar of review as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable to the present set of facts. It may be true that the bar is not strictly applicable as the earlier order might not be regarded as a judgment, but if such repeated applications are accepted after withdrawal of earlier ones, it would be setting a dangerous trend as that would lead to a situation when a litigant may feel that the temperament of a particular Judge is not suiting his interest and may withdraw an application, without leave to file it afresh, and again file it before another Judge with a hope of getting a favourable order.

Entertainment of such second applications would be giving a signal to the litigants that they could have a chance to choose between the benches and they could use it by suitable withdrawals. This again would lead to multiplicity of applications. I may not record any comments on the merits of the case but, in my view, a second application should not be entertained when the first was dismissed and the rule in this regard for writ petitions should be applicable to applications u/s 482, Cr. P.C. also.

With the above observations, the application stands dismissed.