Inherent jurisdiction cannot reopen the same matter through successive petitions without a genuine change in circumstances.

Fresh petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were held not maintainable where they merely sought to reopen the same order already challenged and rejected. Repeated invocation of inherent jurisdiction on identical grounds was treated as an abuse of process, particularly because no genuine change in circumstances was shown. The connected criminal proceedings did not alter the position, and the proper remedy against the earlier dismissal was to approach the Apex Court. Earlier findings concerning return of company property and the effect of the company's notice and resolution were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could maintain fresh petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to reopen the same order already challenged and dismissed, and whether such repeated invocation of inherent jurisdiction amounted to an abuse of process of law.

Analysis: The petitions sought to re-agitate the same grounds that had already been raised in earlier proceedings under Section 482 and had been rejected. The Court noted that the connected criminal proceedings relied upon by the petitioners were distinct and could not create a material change in circumstances for reopening the earlier order. The proper course, if aggrieved by the earlier dismissal, was to approach the Apex Court. The Court also observed that the company had already passed a resolution and issued notice calling upon the petitioner to return the company property, and that the earlier findings regarding Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be unsettled through repeated petitions.

Conclusion: The fresh petitions under Section 482 were not maintainable and constituted an abuse of process of law; the challenge to the earlier order failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the repeated attempt to invoke inherent jurisdiction and left the earlier orders undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen the same matter through successive petitions when the grounds have already been rejected and no genuine change in circumstances is shown.

---