https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311622 Successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC are not barred in every case, but a second petition cannot be used to revive grounds that were already available when the first petition was filed. The inherent jurisdiction is not meant for piecemeal challenges to the same criminal proceedings or to delay the process. Where the charge sheet and cognizance order existed before the first petition and no material change occurred thereafter, a later petition challenging those steps is not maintainable and amounts to abuse of process. The Court held that the second petition was rightly dismissed. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2024 20:23:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311622 Successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC are not barred in every case, but a second petition cannot be used to revive grounds that were already available when the first petition was filed. The inherent jurisdiction is not meant for piecemeal challenges to the same criminal proceedings or to delay the process. Where the charge sheet and cognizance order existed before the first petition and no material change occurred thereafter, a later petition challenging those steps is not maintainable and amounts to abuse of process. The Court held that the second petition was rightly dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311622