Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Hom Narayan Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Salman, Anees, Noori, Afsana, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.06.2021 lodged by complainant/respondent No.4 registered as F.I.R. No.0209 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kaiserganj, District Bahraich and also issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. that earlier the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Misc. Bench No. 15604 of 2021 : Ajeem @ Ajeej Ahmad & ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., challenging the F.I.R., which is impugned in the instant writ petition, and this Court, vide order dated 26.07.2021, dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail legal recourse available to him against the police report, if any, submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but by concealing this fact and in a very finesse way, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition by showing incorrect name of petitioner no.2, as Annes. He argued that Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 provides that, where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to move a second application on the same fact, therefore, the present second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable and the same be dismissed with heavy costs as the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition by concealing the fact of dismissal of his first writ petition for the same cause of action.
On a query being made regarding filing of the two successive writ petitions for the same cause of action by the petitioners by showing one of the petitioner name is incorrectly, learned counsel for the petitioners could not give satisfactory reply for filing of the same. However, he submits that he had no knowledge about filing of the earlier writ petition and tendered his unconditional apology for filing the present petition on behalf of the petitioners and prays that the present petition be dismissed as not pressed. He further prays that he may be permitted to correct the name of petitioner no.2 as Ajeem during course of the day.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not pressed but the petitioners remains cautious in future in filing such type of petition before this Court. However, learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to correct the name of petitioner No.2 during course of the day.
(Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 17.8.2021 Shubhankar