IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 154 of 2010 Jitender Arora …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Yogender Handoo, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated 09th March, 2010 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. (Amendment Application Nil of 2010) Heard learned counsel f0or the parties on the amendment application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. . Amendment application is allowed. Let the amended petition be taken on record. WP (Crl.) No. 154 of 2010 We have heard Mr. Yogender Handoo, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 131 of 2010 State Vs. Parmanand and Ors. The petitioner has further prayed for issuing a direction that he should be enlarged on bail on presenting himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is pertinent to mention here that the proceedings of the criminal case were earlier challenged by the petitioner by way of filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the learned 2 Single Judge of this court vide order dated 18.02.2010 passed the following order, which is being reproduced below:- “Mr. R.P. Nautiyal and Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocates present for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State present for respondent No. 1. Heard. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 131 of 2010; State Vs. Parmanand and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has no role in the alleged cheating narrated in the F.I.R. Attention of this Court is drawn to the State of Anil Chaudhary, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he has not named the present petitioner. It is also argued that civil suit is already pending in respect of the property in suit between the petitioner and the co-accused Parmanand. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case, as the factual dispute raised by the petitioner can be seen by the trial court as to the extent of involvement, if any, of the petitioner in the case. The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with observation that if the petitioner Jitendra Arora surrenders before the court concerned, and moves application for bail, his bail application, shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay.” Keeping in view the order passed by the learned Single judge, it is quite clear that the petitioner by way of this writ petition opens new chapter, which is already closed. There is no provision to review the order passed by the learned Single 3 Judge, which has been passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by any other mode. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the judgment of the Delhi High Court and stated that Hon’ble High Court has invoked its jurisdiction in granting the interim relief to the petitioner. We have perused that order and it is not clear to us whether in that writ petition any order passed by the same High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is under challenge or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not show us any of the deicision by which order passed by the High Court under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was again challenged by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and then the High Court has invoked its jurisdiction. We are accordingly of the view that no relief by way of this writ petition can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner, if wishes, may act on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2010. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SKS/VKG 09.03.2010