Tursan Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7111 of 2025

¶3

Tursan Pal Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 82

¶6

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 994 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2009, under Section 447 I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalesar, District Etah.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially a first information report was lodged under Section 198-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 27.12.2009, however, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 447 I.P.C. on 19.02.2010. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are wholly false and baseless. It has also been urged that despite lapse of about 15 years from the date of submission of charge-sheet, even the statement of P.W.-1 has not been recorded till date, which reflects inordinate delay in trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present application and submits that the instant application is the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the same set of facts. It is contended that in the absence of any new circumstance or change in situation, the present application is not maintainable.

¶11

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the applicant has not denied the fact that an earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. had already been filed on the same cause of action. Earlier application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was rejected by the co ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 05.09.2012.

¶12

NA528 No. 7111 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

In the case of M.C. Ravikumar vs D.S. Velmurugan and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498 the Hon'ble Apex court has reiterated the legal position as under:

¶15

" 11. The short question that arises for our consideration is “Whether a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC would be maintainable on the grounds/pleas that were available to be raised even at the time of filing/decision of the first quashing petition?”

¶16

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."

¶17

From the perusal of aforesaid judgment, it is well settled that successive applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.(Corresponding section 528 of BNSS) on the same set of facts are not maintainable unless there is a substantial change in circumstances or new grounds have arisen after disposal of the earlier application. In the case in hand, the grounds taken by the applicant were available to the applicant when the earlier application was filed.

¶18

In the present case, no new circumstance or subsequent development has been brought on record so as to justify entertaining the present second application. The grounds urged are essentially reiteration of earlier submissions. So far as the contention regarding delay in trial is concerned, though the same is a matter of concern, yet it cannot be a ground to entertain a successive petition under Section 528 BNSS in the absence of any fresh cause of action.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application is not maintainable and does not warrant interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

¶20

The present application is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶21

March 17, 2026 Akram

¶22

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tursan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tursan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Paravind Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sushila Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Padam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Paravind Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another